News

The 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Berlin was an outstanding success. With the unanimous adoption of the resolution on ‘Boosting Democratic, Digital and Maritime Resilience Based on Reliable Neighbourliness and Close Cooperation’ the annual conference in the German Bundestag was successfully concluded. On the second day, the conference conducted an in-depth investigation into the impact of climate change, particularly on biodiversity, and what measures were taken and should be taken. The final report of the just concluded BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity was presented. In a lively and open general debate, many viewpoints and ideas were shared, before the BSPC Rapporteurs on Migration and Integration as well as on Sea-Dumped Ammunitions gave their annual updates. Finally, the BSPC-Presidency was transferred from the German Bundestag to the Danish Folketinget. FOURTH SESSION Panel discussion: Strengthening the resilience of climate and biodiversity Chaired by Mr Jarosław Wałęsa and Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle , the session was concerned with presenting the work of the BSPC in the past years. As the previous day had shown the frightening speed of climate change, Mr Wałęsa it was up to the parliamentarians to present ambitious targets and look for solutions. Presentation of the Final Report of the Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity by Chairman Philipp da Cunha Mr Philipp da Cunha explained that the report summarised three years of intensive parliamentary work and issues that would be defining challenges of the 21 st century. July 2023 had been the hottest on record, sea ice had been at a historic low, and global ocean surface temperatures had reached record highs. In the Baltic Sea, the rise of air temperature had exceeded the worldwide trend. The ice extent had shrunk while precipitation had increased. Moreover, the Arctic was experiencing up to four times faster warming than the rest of the globe, with severe impacts on marine life. The IPCC had emphasised this year that proof of negative impacts was increasing the urgency of worldwide climate action. Denying that would not prevent wildfires, droughts, storms, and other extreme weather events. No one country could solve these issues alone, making international collaboration indispensable. At the same time, successful mitigation work relied on working with local partners in local settings. Mr da Cunha thanked his predecessor, Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby, for leading the first two years of the working group. Topics that the working group had investigated and presented best practice examples on included sustainable fisheries, carbon sequestration, island habitability, and sustainable energy. Moreover, they had looked at climate change in the Arctic and restoring peatlands. In that, the group had spoken with government officials, entrepreneurs, researchers, representatives from civil society, and news representatives. In addition, two surveys had been conducted among the governments of the BSPC, considering in the first current and planned climate and biodiversity legislation as well as in the second the effect of the war in Ukraine on climate policy goals and implementation. The final report offered a unique and comprehensive overview of the knowledge, experiences, best practices as well as existing policies and projects in the region. The working group’s recommendations condensed the wealth of knowledge into 25 focused, far-reaching yet pragmatic calls that had been integrated into the BSPC Conference Resolution. Speech by Ms Ditte Juul Jørgensen, Director-General, DG Energy, European Commission Ms Ditte Juul Jørgensen mentioned the pipeline carrying natural gas from Norway to Poland as a good example of Baltic cooperation could help secure the energy supply, especially in a crisis situation. The European Commission under Ms Ursula von der Leyen had put climate change and biodiversity at the top of the agenda with the European Green Deal. The war in Ukraine had had a significant impact on energy security, yet solutions had been swiftly found that were in line with the EU’s longer-term climate neutrality objectives. That underlined democracy’s strength. At the same time, it had reinforced the necessity for energy diversity and autonomy, the latter through renewable energy sources. She noted that more work was needed on the impact of climate change on the energy system. 75 % of the CO 2 emissions in Europe came from the energy sector, requiring urgent action through energy efficiency, lower consumption, and more renewable energy production. In 2021, 22 % of renewable energy in the overall energy mix had proven a significant rise from the 10 % in 2005. This trend would accelerate, targeting 42.5 % for 2030 with the aspiration of reaching 45 %. Ms Jørgensen underlined that this ambitious goal meant nearly doubling the current share of renewables within eight years, yet it was necessary. The Baltic Sea with its potential for offshore wind was key in this endeavour. The recent Revised Energy Directive required member states to establish a framework for joint projects across borders and sea basins. She appreciated the already achieved agreements in the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection group, working towards 22.5 gigawatts in 2030 and more than doubling that to 50 gigawatts by 2050 ( https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/infrastructure/high-level-groups/baltic-energy-market-interconnection-plan_en ). The Baltic Sea region could set the pace and provide great rewards for Europe. Moreover, the region was vital for energy security as well. She approved of the three Baltic countries’ agreement to synchronise their electricity system with the European network, moving away from Russia. In general, more investments into the grid and system would be needed to achieve the region’s ambition in energy security as well as the Green Transition and to secure affordable energy. She stressed that biodiversity did not clash with climate change mitigation, although some procedures had to be harmonised to improve protection. Part of this and the roll-out of renewables was hampered by time-consuming bureaucracy. The Revised Energy Directive sought to facilitate an easing of that through strategic planning, comprehensive mapping across sea basins as well as identifying accelerated deployment areas for renewable energy. ( https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-directive-targets-and-rules/renewable-energy-directive_en ) In December 2022, the EU member states had adopted an emergency regulation to accelerate the rollout of renewable energy to secure the energy supply. This was a joint effort by all, she underlined. Speech by Ms Lis Lindal Jørgensen, Institute of Marine Research in Norway Ms Lis Lindal Jørgensen spoke about strengthening the resilience of the climate and biodiversity . That meant strengthening the resilience of science, to increase the accuracy and scope. Her institute was one of the largest in Europe concerned with marine research, mainly concerned with monitoring and advice. Communication lines between science and government were very short. Their goal was to achieve an ecosystem-based management of human activities, i.e., how to explore and extract the services of marine areas without harming the ecosystem. She listed three good reason to focus on biodiversity: The UN’s International Biodiversity Agreement (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the international agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine Biological Biodiversity of areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ). To that end, it had to be determined where the thousands of marine species were located in time and space. Her institute had a large fleet for monitoring, for instance in the vast Barents Sea. Standardisation was key, having each ship carry the same type of equipment. Through annual meetings, progress was discussed and standardisation deepened. Her institute was covering temperature, plankton, fish, benthos, sea mammals, and sea birds. Over the past sixty years, the share of Atlantic water in the Barents Sea had increased and that of Arctic water shrunk, decreasing the habitat of Arctic species. This had led to Atlantic species spreading more and more while the Arctic fish had been reduced to a tiny habitat in the high north. The spread of Atlantic species meant that the respective fisheries followed them up north into areas where there had not been any trawling in the past, endangering the biodiversity of bottom dwellers. To protect these vulnerable species, 400,000 km² had been closed to fishing after meetings with all stakeholders. Ms Jørgensen underscored that the same effect was happening in all their waters. Norway had established a huge programme called MAREANO to counter this by mapping all the species. Thus, they could open and close areas depending on the locations of fish fleets but also provide location guidance for offshore energy, deep-sea mining, and the like. At the same time, ice was receding, and there was even more activity within the oceans. Therefore, time- and cost-efficient monitoring had to be implemented to learn more about this. Comprehensive integrated management enabled action when it was detected to be necessary. This meant a transdisciplinary approach including scientists from many different fields, be they sea bird or seismic researchers or experts on seaborne human activities such as tourism. Understanding the pressures created and acting on populations meant that maps could be elaborated showing the risks for species in space and time. As an example, she noted whales spawning in spring in a certain area, resulting in a call to keep ships away; later on, the whales had moved on to another area but could be safely visited by tourism. All in all, her institute was looking to translate this highly complex information into easier-to-understand advice for managers. The speaker went on to pose questions to the assembled parliamentarians. She asked if the governments were ready to receive this kind of advice – meaning that the government side also needed to invite all their sectors to a table to discuss this information. Segregation into silos of sectors was no longer feasible. In addition, she asked how ecosystem-based management could be made more robust in the context of changing political priorities and economic interests. This had to be answered for science resilience. She extended an invitation to a conference on the Arctic in April 2024. Speech by Ms Prof Dr Daniela Jacob, Meteorologist and Director of the Climate Service Center Germany (GERICS) Prof Daniela Jacob saw a possible answer to the issues in the principle of climate-resilient development. That referred to the process of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation measures to support sustainable development for all. It was enabled by increased international cooperation, including improved access to adequate financial resources, particularly for vulnerable regions, sectors, and groups as well as inclusive governance and coordinated policy. These days, it was known that greenhouse gases had changed the atmosphere and how the weather system reacted to that. She pointed to the Paris Agreement and the 1.5 °C threshold. Scientists including her had worked on the 2018 IPCC report detailing the differences between a world at 1.5 °C and at 2 °C increase. From 1960 to 2010, the global temperature had risen by half a degree; just from 2010 to 2023, nearly another half a degree had been added. They were currently 1 to 1.2 °C above pre-industrial levels. This meant that weather extremes were accelerating, as evidenced by the present year. However, it was still manageable. Yet the speed of change was barrelling towards the unmanageable, and that made it urgent to reduce that. She underlined the integrity of the scientists at the IPCC. Now, they had shifted from a risk-oriented to a resilience-based approach which investigated how the human system was developing in conjunction with the ecosystem. The challenge was to integrate all of that. An April paper had looked at the burden on humans: Already in the present, 10 % of the population had been shifted outside the temperature niche of the species. Thus, they required either heating or cooling, i.e., energy. Even with the current pledges to reduce emissions, the trend was heading for a 2.7 °C increase over pre-industrial levels, in which 20 – 30 % of the world’s population would be outside the human temperature niche. Ms Jacob underlined that this was due to the behaviour of people today. Another aspect was lifetime warming: Someone born in 1960 had experienced warming of 0.7 °C, with most of the change only in the last 15 – 20 years. People born today in their lifetime would experience a massive change of 2 °C, 3°C, or even 4 °C. Stability would fall by the wayside. This meant that decisions today had to be taken in light of future effects – not just by politicians but by everybody. The choice had to be to go through the door of green solutions, of climate-based resilience. She called it a privilege to design a new lifestyle of sustainable development. Mr Jarosław Wałęsa asked when the point of no return would be reached. Everyone in the world had to work towards this goal. Until that happened in fact and not just on paper, they would not reach any of their goals. Ms Bryndís Haraldsdóttir asked Ms Lis Lindal Jørgensen how the severing of relations with Russia had affected her work. Mr Staffan Eklöf spoke of the tragedy of the commons, when people with access to a resource acted in their own interest and thus depleted said resource. This applied to the fishery, for instance. The solution was mutual restraint, such as fishing quotas. The Swedish delegation had been pushing to call for lower quotas. Ms Eka von Kalben noted that many people were resisting the steady news of climate doom. As such, she wondered how encouraging signals could be sent to create a positive mood for climate change mitigation. Mr Jens-Holger Schneider noted a statement by Prof Jacob in the margins that the nutrition content in C4 plants was dropping which would cause problems with feeding the human population. Mr Schneider wondered how farmers could react to that today. Prof Daniela Jacob replied that the point of no return depended on what one was looking at. The Earth would not be destroyed, she assured her listeners, but the question in this context was if it would be an Earth with humans living on it. What scientists expected were enormous regional damages impacting other areas, rather than wholesale destruction, by crossing roughly 2.5 °C at the end of the 21 st century. That would mean an ice-free Arctic, major shifts in precipitation and storm shifts, which would cause damage and droughts, destroy food production and technological infrastructure. This absolutely had to be prevented, and that was why global to local policy was indispensable. The local could not wait for the global to agree on the best way forward. Things had to be done now, regardless of others’ actions. This tied in with the need for rapid innovation – both technological and social. She likened this to the Apollo moonshot programme in the 1960s. Moving on to Ms von Kalben’s question, she insisted they still had a window of opportunity. Hiding was not an option; action had to be taken: regional products; de-sealing the concrete in the cities, adding more green to cities to lower the heat; renewable energy completely replacing fossil fuels; looking at the trading systems; innovation in start-ups. There were many positive things that could be done, she insisted. Rather than prohibiting things, she suggested people setting goals for their personal carbon footprint. Regarding the nutrients in plants, Ms Jacob clarified that she was not a biologist. Yet biologists’ reports were worrying. She also made clear that this was not about climate change but about the amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere. That was changing the substances in the plants, although more research was needed. Their nutrient quality seemed to be decreasing, thus affecting meat and fish quality. This underlined the need to keep researching food production and security. It was urgent to find ways to ensure that there would be enough food for humans to eat in fifty years’ time. Ms Lis Lindal Jørgensen pointed to the challenge with Russian participation. The Arctic Council had a rotating two-year presidency for each nation. During the recent Russian leadership, everything had been paused due to the war. Now Norway held the presidency, but Russia had threatened to pull out of the council if treated any differently. This made work extremely difficult. The same applied to the Barents Sea. As for fish quotas, they had to be agreed across borders since fish did not care about them. At the same time, fish might aggregate in one spot – apparently rich fishing grounds – even though the overall population was below sustainability levels. There were three different battlegrounds, each requiring different approaches: climate change, pollution, and species extinction. Ms Ditte Juul Jørgensen underlined the critical need for global action for climate change and the Green Transition. She agreed that there had to be forerunners to pioneer innovation and practice. The EU had shown that greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced while increasing the GDP. Economic growth had been harvested from climate action. More had to be done. The upcoming COP 28 in the United Arab Emirates would be critical. The EU was pushing for global targets and action to be agreed there, with more renewable energies across the world. Regarding the absence of Russia, she noted that the withholding of Russian gas had helped the energy transition. Thirdly, how to people bring aboard, she agreed with Prof Jacob. Change was a privilege, she underlined. The Green Transition brought jobs; renewable energy was the lowest-cost energy. Innovation was necessary to keep Europe pioneering new green technology to achieve the climate targets. Mr Jarosław Wałęsa concluded the session by noting that he was convinced Europe could be a leader in the global change. As a member of the European parliament, he had been involved in negotiating free trade agreements with, e.g., Canada or Japan. He had witnessed European power to convince others to join these agreements under certain environmental conditions. A united Europe could achieve these goals and take matters much further. GENERAL DEBATE The General Debate was chaired by Prof Jānis Vucāns and Ms Bryndís Haraldsdóttir . Mr Himanshu Gulati mentioned two issues he felt would be important in the future. Firstly, the dependency on other nations for rare earths and other minerals needed for technology and the Green Transition had to be lowered, which he deemed as vital as the supply of Russian fossil fuel had been before the war. Secondly, the extreme pace and all-consuming vastness of artificial intelligence (AI) would affect the world immensely. AI could be a great boon, but it also was a tremendous threat to many sides of society. There was a reason that big tech companies had called for a pause to AI research until legislative guidelines could be in place. Europe and the Baltic Sea region had to put this topic high on the agenda. Mr Simon Erik Jyrkaes , BSPYF, saw the production of biofuel as very important for many Baltic Sea countries and appreciated its inclusion in the Resolution as well as acknowledging the threat of dependence on China. Ms Hanna Katrín Friðriksson highlighted that democracy of today rested on the hard work of previous generations. That history had to be taught to young people, to give them the strength for democratic resilience. She appreciated the previous day’s panel on that topic, noting there was a clear connection from hate speech, disinformation and fake news to violence against minorities. She quoted Mr Nemitz from that panel that the European regulations against hate speech ensured freedom of speech and expression. This was enormously important. Ms Friðriksson further underlined the Nordic countries combined efforts to strengthen democracy together with like-minded countries, regions, and people. Together, they would continue to work for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Mr Tiit Maran underlined that climate change and biodiversity were deeply connected. He was also grateful for the idea from the previous session that great things started with seemingly small things. Next, he bemoaned that the school curricula had very little on ecosystems and ecology, so that humans felt removed from the natural world. Ms Ingveldur Anna Sigurðardóttir , BSPYF, said that everybody wanted to live in a world of individual freedom and democracy. The Russian aggression had reminded them that democracy was vulnerable. That’s why they had to stand with Ukraine, to keep Europe the continent they wanted to live in. Mr Kaspars Briškens noted the Baltic Sea region’s responsibility to jointly tackle climate change and biodiversity. They should achieve leadership in developing green technology and sharing it. Cross-border transport infrastructure as well as a coherent digital background mattered as well. He highlighted the concept for a working group on these points and hoped the BSPC would continue its work here. Mr Ola Elvestuen commented on the previous session’s powerful message to listen to science and to act on its findings. That was the task of the people in positions of power today, not that of future generations. This was reflected in the BSPC’s Resolution. Furthermore, freedom and democracy had to be defended. It was democratic countries pushing for action on climate change and biodiversity, creating the modern and green market economy. Ms Sidney Gregor-Wielan , BSPYF, referred to Dr Jacob’s suggestion of setting personal carbon footprint goals. Ms Gregor-Wielan was irritated by this because it shifted the focus away from big oil companies to the individual consumers. Fossil fuels were a thing of the past. She called on parliamentarians not to fall for the myth of the individual carbon footprint. Instead, the development of renewable energy had to be promoted. Mr Simon Påvals commented on populism rising today as it had a century before. Democracy required a certain measure of responsibility, interest, understanding, and knowledge acquisition of the population. Its opposite was populism, offering simple solutions to complicated problems, falsely claiming to express the majority view, exploiting people’s fears or ignorance, dismissing scientific facts or fuelling conspiracy theories. History showed the severe damage populism could wreak. Democracy needed constant maintenance and cross-border cooperation towards a better society for each individual. Mr Elias Arndt , BSPYF, raised the problem of verifying accurate information, especially in the digital sphere – given, among others, AI image and text generation. As a software developer, he suggested a data platform to inform journalists and individuals which social media entries were reliable or contained false information. The greatest danger lay in trusted media picking up on misinformation and spreading it. Mr Stanisław Kostulski , BSPYF, appreciated the ability to live a free life as a young person and also the intergenerational solidarity represented at this conference. Mr Marc Timmer highlighted the call in the Resolution to shortening the permitting process. Renewable energy was by now by far the cheapest form of energy. It was crucial to raise the acceptance on site. In that, he found financial support from civil society important. Ms Dominika Maria Łysień , BSPYF, saw energy consumption rising continuously. She saw this as the moment to go for green solutions through renewable energy production but vitally also energy storage. Autonomous energy production in Europe could make the continent independent from market fluctuations. Mr Jens-Holger Schneider argued for clean nuclear energy, the 3+ generation of power plants. He considered this as a bridge energy source superior to gas. Mr Thomas Krüger called for the local people to be involved in the expansion of renewed energy, making certain that they immediately benefited from solar and wind power installations in their neighbourhood. CLOSING SESSION The Closing Session was chaired by BSPC President Johannes Schraps and incoming BSPC President Henrik Møller . Rapporteur report on Migration and Integration by Ms Carola Veit Ms Carola Veit said that migration and integration were among the great challenges of this time for all the members of the BSPC. The various crises around the world had already set off massive departures of civilians from their homes, now adding more with one of the greatest humanitarian crises in Europe’s history with the war in Ukraine. Eurostat had stated that there had been over 72,000 first-time asylum applicants in April 2023 in EU countries, an increase of 34 % to April 2022. She underlined that refugees were human beings with their own histories and fates. Solutions had to be found for housing, education, labour, healthcare, and childcare, requiring common European solutions. Yet a joint European policy had proven a challenge in itself. The EU had now stated that acceptance of refugees should be compulsory, yet the overall goal had shifted to reducing the number of refugees coming to Europe. Ms Veit opined this showed greater emotion involved in migration politics, reflecting the rise of far-right parties claiming that migrants were threatening security. Poland was planning a referendum on accepting refugees; Sweden was aiming to tighten the requirements for family joining resident migrants; Finland had announced crackdowns on migrants; Denmark was revising its citizenship rules. Moreover, Finland and the Baltic countries were tightening their border security to Russia and Belarus. An OECD report highlighted that integration and inclusion investments benefited migrants, their families, societies, and economies while failures to integrate were costly. With shrinking work forces, efforts to integrate migrants were essential. The only conclusion was that this topic had to be kept at the top of the agenda. Rapporteur report on Sea-Dumped Ammunitions by Ms Anna Kassautzki Ms Anna Kassautzki began by saying a time bomb was ticking on the ocean floor. She noted that the number of 400,000 tonnes of submerged conventional munitions was only an estimate. Much of it had not been found yet. Since WW II, the shell casings were rotting, exposing the contents to the waters. A research project near Kiel had learned that mussels were taking in TNT and derivates and that 25 % of cod near the dump sites were showing liver cancer. The slow water exchange of the Baltic Sea exacerbated the concentration and thus effect of the substances. Aside from the BSPC, the CBSS and other organisations were also working on this topic. In December 2022, an expert roundtable had gathered 40 leading experts in Kiel, producing recommendations like a joint fund. By now, technological progress had made locating munitions easier, e.g., using AI to identify sites. In combination with the planned German disposal platform, this could be a gamechanger. Finding and destroying the ammunition above the waterline would be the best solution without damaging the ecosystem. Ms Kassautzki appreciated the European Commissioner Sinkevičius endorsing this project and hoped for EU funds to join the German federal government’s 100 million euro budget. The EU was ready to coordinate efforts and help develop respective tools and technologies. This, Ms Kassautzki underlined, was huge progress over the past year. Yet, the joint work by all the stakeholders had to be intensified so she called on everyone to continue filling the knowledge gaps and share best practices. President Schraps thanked all the rapporteurs for their efforts over the last year, noting that their reports were available on the website in full. Administrative Matters BSPC President Johannes Schraps invited the conference to adopt the recommended changes to paragraph 11 in the BSPC’s Statutes and Rules of Procedure, after already optimising and strengthening the foundation of their cooperation at the 31 st Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference in Stockholm. The Standing Committee had unanimously approved the changes to paragraph 11 at its meeting on 27 August 2023. The conference unanimously adopted the amended changes to paragraph 11 of the Statutes and Rules of Procedure. BSPC President Johannes Schraps thanked all the delegations for their work on the resolution of the 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and the respective labour of the Drafting Committee. He believed this was an excellent document. The conference unanimously adopted the Resolution of the 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference. BSPC President Johannes Schraps voiced his hope that the governments of the Baltic Sea region would implement the resolution and also that this would lead to a better region. Next, he moved on to establishing a new BSPC working group. Before that, he thanked the members of the just concluded Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity for their work, singling out the chairs, Mr Philipp da Cunha and Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby. The Baltic Assembly had introduced a concept for the new working group which had been discussed and refined in detail at various BSPC meetings. The Standing Committee had forwarded the concept to the conference for approval. With the adoption of the resolution, the BSPC Working Group on Energy Security, Self-Sustainability, Connectivity, and Resilience had been approved. As the chair, Mr Kaspars Briškens had been nominated. Mr Schraps asked for the conference’s approval. The conference unanimously appointed Mr Kaspars Briškens as chairman of the new BSPC Working Group on Energy Security, Self-Sustainability, Connectivity, and Resilience. Mr Kaspars Briškens accepted the appointment. BSPC President Johannes Schraps said it had been a huge privilege to represent the BSPC and its core values at various conferences. This had been a challenge – because of the times and the efforts these had demanded – but also a great honour. With that, he passed the traditional baton of the presidency of the BSPC over to Mr Henrik Møller of Denmark. Newly installed BSPC President Henrik Møller thanked the youth forum for their contributions in resilience. Democracy should never be taken for granted and was a continued struggle to keep it intact. He went on to say that he would take on the task of the presidency with humility and dedication. The BSPC had been established in 1991 as a forum for political dialogue. Russia’s war in Ukraine had been a reminder of dark times that had seemed far away. The nations of the Baltic Sea region had been divided during the Cold War, but the spark of collaboration and cooperation had lit a passion in the 1990s. The BSPC played a crucial role in bringing together parliamentarians, experts, and stakeholders, facilitating joint strategies for tackling common challenges. It stood as an example of the power of cooperation and unity. The path of the Baltic States to freedom showcased how collaborative efforts could overcome even the most difficult circumstances. Mr Møller sought to continue on this path. Through upholding the principles of dialogue, understanding, and joint action, they would keep on harnessing the collective strength of the Baltic Sea region and build a brighter future. The urgent need for energy diversification had accelerated and scaled up low-carbon energy technologies. The challenges and opportunities of the future had to be navigated to ensure a secure, sustainable, and resilient energy supply. As important was the resilience to climate change, requiring government and gubernatorial practices to integrate scientific knowledge with local expertise. In conclusion, safety and defence in the Baltic Sea region was of utmost importance in light of the changed situation over the past five years. Mr Møller was looking forward to a constructive and fruitful collaboration. The conference applauded the speech with standing ovations. Outgoing BSPC President and then BSPC Vice-President Johannes Schraps thanked everyone involved in the organisation of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum and the 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference. He thanked expressively Katalin Zádor and the whole Bundestag-team and Secretary General Bodo Bahr for the ‘outstanding job’, as well as all who had contributed to the perfect conference proceedings. With his whole delegation, he had been very delighted to see all participants in Berlin, in the Plenary Hall of the German Bundestag. He also thanked all the attendees for their participation and their contributions which made the conference as successful as it was. With that, he declared the 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference closed.

The representatives of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum presented their recommendations, followed by an informative panel discussion on Boosting Democratic Resilience and Promoting Digital Resilience. In the next session, the conference investigated Strengthening the Resilience of Maritime Ecosystems. Second session Introductory remarks followed by a panel discussion on the topic of „Boosting democratic resilience and promoting digital resilience“ Ms Hanna Katrín Friðriksson and Mr Wille Valve co-chaired this session. Ms Friðriksson said as an introduction that value-based democracy had been under threat in recent years, not least through the rise of digital technology. Presentation by Ms Silva Laure and Mr Shahin Khosravi, representing the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum Ms Silva Laure and Mr Shahin Khosravi explained that the youths had produced eight unanimous recommendations on four topics. On improving digital resilience, they recommended prohibition of personal mass profiling based on data as far as these profiles allowed targeted advertising for disinformation; the parliaments should promote digital literacy education for all age groups regarding data privacy and supporting innovations to tackle disinformation. On youth participation, they called for youth involvement in political decision-making and youth civic engagement through increased political literacy; more platforms for young people with decision-making power and legally guarantee youth councils to advise local and regional governments on policies relevant to young people. Regarding social division and polarisation, they recommended developing and implementing civic education programmes and civil society initiatives to raise awareness of the dangers of extremism to democracy, including recruiting strategies; encouraging cross-border exchange programmes for citizens of all ages and diverse backgrounds focused on bridging societal division and combating extremism. To sustain faith in democratic institutions, they called for a guarantee on inclusive governance by including social groups affected by structural inequality in the formation of policies and establishing mechanisms for participatory budgeting for more equitable resource distribution and community empowerment; encouraging workers to join unions by promoting awareness and strengthening the institutional framework of the workers’ unions. In conclusion, the representatives also recommended that the BSPC implement a follow-up and monitoring process to track the progress of the recommendations presented here at the German Bundestag. Ms Laure called on the BSPC to involve youth participation at all working-level meetings of the working group on all policy areas. Mr Khosravi insisted that youth involvement could not be tokenism or “youth washing”; they had to be understood as active agents of policy making beyond so-called youth issues. Speech by Mr Stefan Seidler , independent Member of the German Bundestag for the South-Schleswigian Voter’s Association, Member of the Committee on Internal Affairs and Community Mr Stefan Seidler favoured the Nordic and Baltic forward-looking approaches to digitalisation. He noted that his parliamentary mandate marked the first time in sixty years that the Danish minority was represented in the German Bundestag. Subtle changes marked the shifts in the digital political landscape; the first to be targeted – and thus to learn – were minorities, as also evidenced by the Uighur situation in China or the LGBTQI+ community in Europe. The current major threat in the digital realm was Russia, finding many people in the West willing to believe their disinformation. He did not see the solution in technical or legal measures but rather in education, through strengthening media literacy in schools. Again, he pointed to the Nordic countries as best practice examples. Speech by Mr Paul Nemitz , Principal Advisor of the European Commission Although he agreed that education and boosting the civil society were important, Mr Paul Nemitz underlined that common rules were necessary as a framework for the digital world. The social media platforms were run by huge companies against whose power single countries could not stand. Common rules for the European Union could tie these firms into the engagement for democracy, unlike the autocratic forces of Russia and China. The data protection law of the GDPR was crucial for instance in the curtailing of AI. As such, he appreciated the youth representatives’ first recommendation to prohibit mass profiles as these constituted comprehensive surveillance that could be used to influence or even blackmail individuals. The Digital Services Act (DSA) for instance forbade self-preference. It also obliged major platforms to ensure that they were not a breeding ground for illegal content but also such undermining democratic values, even if that was legal. Structural measures had to be established to that goal. Currently, audits were started to review these measures. This was important, Mr Nemitz underlined, as these networks were competing with the free press. All media in Europe now were inherently obliged to prevent anti-democratic or harassing content, as opposed to the previous notice-and-take-down procedure. The democratic state could not stand idly by while the free press and journalists were wiped out. Thus, a level playing field for journalism in this competition had to be ensured. Moreover, participation in democratic decisions on all levels had to be boosted. A democracy had to be able to defend itself against its enemies. Speech by Mr Otto Tabuns , Director of the Baltic Security Foundation Mr Otto Tabuns saw the Baltic Sea region as a key area in the EU, from the point of view of security but also as a gateway to the Arctic. He also highlighted democracy and freedom as aspects other countries were lacking, such as North Korea or Russia, which made the latter attack these. China, furthermore, sought technological inroads to bolster its power and influence. In the area of defence, he called for better integration on a multi-national level, including both defensive and offensive cyber capabilities. For the environment, a secure renewable energy supply was vital. Moreover, vital services such as finances and transport but also the internet had to be integrated and secured. Regarding societal security and education, he bemoaned the rapid changes accompanying the COVID pandemic and the war in Ukraine, arguing for vertical, multi-lateral, and cross-border cooperation. Several processes had to be pursued at the same time. Mr Tabuns also raised the threat of personal profiles gathered by China through various means, among them TikTok, for surveillance and control purposes. Ms Anna Kassautzki moderated the following panel debate. In the quest to make the internet safer, she raised the concern over the poor working conditions of content moderators in social media companies – the people who had to review the reported hate speech or otherwise disturbing content. Despite their traumatising job, they did not have recourse to psychological support. She started off the debate by pointing to creating spaces safe from disinformation campaigns. Mr Paul Nemitz saw a number of things that had to be in done in parallel to secure such spaces as the foundation of democracy. The Council for the European Public Space sought to bring together all TV news from all member states onto one platform with automatic translation; the goal was to provide comparatively safe sources of information which had previously been blocked by the language barrier. Considering the strict controls of public news in Hungary and Poland, this contributed to domestic plurality of information. In addition, fake news had to be refuted. He also saw the vigorous enforcing of the structural requirements of the DSA as vital. Ms Anna Kassautzki remarked that people were starting to distrust the media but blindly trust social media comments. As such, she asked how trust in researched news and media literacy could be strengthened. Mr Stefan Seidler agreed that cross-border pluralism was necessary. He favoured education on digital literacy here, again praising the Nordic countries. More money had to be invested. As for the content moderators, he believed that those trained to review contents in the public sphere could be hired for more money by the large companies. Ms Silva Lare interjected that young people had contributed a project on tackling disinformation to the CBSS Ministerial Meeting. Steps were taken by the youth for the youth. There did not have to be a state-directed solution. Mr Shahin Khosravi felt that trust was connected to a feeling of being included in society. As good as some strategies were, they rarely reached the local level. All democratic forces had to be united towards this goal. Furthermore, there had to be local-level programmes to include older people. Ms Anna Kassautzki concurred that a strong civil society was the backbone of a strong democracy where all could participate, even though they might be part of a minority or immigrants. She pointed to the example of Twitter/X under Elon Musk’s ownership relaxing control: The first ones to leave were the minority groups. Indeed, these private companies had to be held accountable, with the European level approaches. Mr Otto Tabuns considered the fundamental differences regarding freedom of speech between the United States – where it was absolute – and Europe – where it was regulated – but also China – where it was non-existent. Primarily, research skills and academic honesty had to be taught at all levels, including the most basic ones. Debate skills were equally lacking. He believed that these skills in young people would make Europe more competitive in an economic sense. Mr Paul Nemitz vehemently disagreed with the perception that Europe was less free in terms of speech than the USA. The reality was that regulation maintained the freedom of speech through the absence of harassment, allowing more people to join in the discussion – especially minorities. American discourse lacked exactly that regulatory aspect introduced in Europe as a result of war and fascism. The debate was opened to the plenary at this point. Ms Bryndís Haraldsdóttir underlined Iceland’s high esteem for the BSPC as a unique forum for like-minded, mutual understanding in the region, after the Russian attack. The human suffering in Ukraine could not be ignored. Iceland was extremely concerned about sexual violence perpetrated by Russian troops. Furthermore, human trafficking exploiting women and children had to be combated with all means, including the virtual space. Democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law had to be defended vigorously, for everyone, irrespective of who they were, their gender, or how they self-identified. Mr Staffan Eklöf noted that democracy was the sibling of listening and reflection. Rigidity and prejudice stood in the way of the ongoing process of democracy. Trust, furthermore, had to be earned. Accordingly, personal integrity was the biggest asset in fighting authoritarian regimes. He called on the attendees to listen, to discuss politely, to think critically, and to analyse one’s own thoughts. Mr Arturs Pīlācis , BSPYF, warned of changes in society that contradicted common values in the Baltic Sea region. This applied to, among others, censorship, human rights, freedoms. Good intentions did not ensure good measures, and it was necessary to listen to the people on the opposite political side to chart a good course. Ms Amani Mahdi Basita Al-Mehsen , BSPYF, noted how deeply the situation in the world was reflected in young people and how strong their passion for democratic and just policies was. She called for a continued resilience in the here and now, not just put off into the future, choosing to do not what was easy but what was right. Listening mattered, for silence was toxic. Mr Martin Johnsen , BSPYF, stressed the value of youth participation, envisioning institutions to bring youth voices into political decision-making and shaping the future they wanted to live in. A renaissance of youth democracy was needed in his view, as young people were disillusioned for not being included. Mr Johannes-Emmanuel Allas , BSPYF, agreed with youth organisations having to be included in all policy decisions. Regarding digital resilience, he referenced the question of creating a proprietary platform in, e.g., Europe or continuing to work with the giant companies headquartered in the US. Mr Kaspars Briškens himself had been a youth parliamentarian 25 years earlier when all the same topics had been discussed – with the exception of digital resilience. Youth participation had been demanded with the same kind of dynamism and enthusiasm. He emphasised three key areas for youth participation: One was youth unemployment, the other was housing availability, and the third was inclusive societies where everyone could prosper regardless of their background. Ms Hanna Westerén was cheered by the youth representatives call for union involvement, in light of the lack of engagement by young people in political parties or unions in Sweden. A resilient and sustainable future required the people to facilitate participation in such institutions. Mr Tom Matzen , BSPYF, interpreted resilience as giving the tools to do so to the people. Yet there had to be a stop sign to cease spreading hatred and a go sign to cooperate more strongly. Mr Johannes Schraps summarised the preceding statements as proof of how many aspects had to be kept in mind to promote digital resilience and to strengthen democracy. A balance had to be struck between curtailing hate speech but also protecting the freedom of expression. This was a difficult task which he likened to a ride on a razor blade. He applauded that so many representatives of the youth forum had found the courage to take the floor and speak in this plenary hall. Equally, he appreciated that they had not just spoken from their own perspective but had also called for digital education for everyone across the generations. Regarding the trust in public institutions, Mr Schraps believed that a new discourse had to be found on how to deal with mistakes. When adopting laws as a legislative body, he thought that some room for manoeuvre had to be kept. The administrative body had such space but were afraid of making mistakes. As such, these problems had to be solved jointly and without this fear. Prof Jānis Vucāns remembered that the topic of resilience had first surfaced in the BSPC in 2014, after the Russian occupation of Crimea. Aside from the obvious hate speech, he also saw other effects at work, such as the availability of Russian TV channels and their influence in several European countries. This was part of a hidden attempt to spread post-Soviet ideas, which was why these channels and Russian products had been banned in Latvia. Resilience needed stronger cooperation and better understanding of these issues across the countries. Third session Strengthening the resilience of maritime ecosystems The session was chaired by Mr Jorodd Asphjell and Ms Anna Kassautzki . V ideo message by Mr Virginijus Sinkevičius , EU Commissioner for Environment Mr Virginijus Sinkevičius considered the BSPC a unique parliamentary bridge between all the countries of the Baltic Sea region. An objective of both EU and BSPC was to make the Baltic Sea clean and safe. Despite many efforts, the fish stocks remained under pressure, threatening the livelihoods of many local communities. Eutrophication through excessive nitrogen loads had to be curbed urgently. The sea-dumped ammunition was another threat that had to be tackled, and he cherished the BSPC’s repeated push on this issue. Strong regional collaboration by all stakeholders had to be the solution. Speech by Ms Steffi Lemke , Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection, Germany Ms Steffi Lemke pointed out that the work on environmental protection of the Baltic Sea had been encumbered by the ramifications of the Russian war of aggression. These were all the more visible in the Baltic Sea region, as evidenced by the halted cooperation in HELCOM. Yet the democratic nations were continuing the implementation of the HELCOM Action Plan. Beyond the Baltic Sea region, breakthrough developments in marine protection had been possible: Germany had called for a pause on deep-sea mining until relevant frameworks were established, based on the incalculable risks. This paradigm shift was important, she highlighted. By now, 21 nations had committed to such a precautionary pause. As relevant was the UN Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction treaty which had finally been agreed upon in March 2023, despite the difficult times. The goal was to have the treaty ratified prior to the UN Oceans Conference in Nice in 2025, requiring 60 countries to pass it. The Montreal biodiversity conference had called for 30 % of the seas to be turned into marine protected areas, which was only possible by covering areas beyond national jurisdiction. Moving on, she looked at the efforts to establish a legally binding treaty against plastic pollution. The second round of negotiations had taken place in Paris in April 2023. It was incumbent to reduce the amount of plastic in the sea, although a breakthrough had not yet been reached. As vital as recycling was in this issue, the current rate of plastic production meant it would not suffice as a solution. Instead, the production – especially of toxic and non-recyclable ones – had to be reduced. Ms Lemke spoke about the horrendous situation in the oceans, having reached unprecedented temperatures. This was also reflected by the increased hurricane season. Thus, it was all the more important for the Dubai COP to yield success in curbing temperatures. Otherwise, Ms Lemke put the raison d’être behind climate conferences in doubt. Given that any reduction in temperature would take a long time, she appealed to the parliamentarians to support the restoration law on the EU level. Nature was needed to support the amelioration efforts. Ms Lemke addressed the issue of sea-dumped ammunitions in the Baltic Sea which had been neglected far too long. She underlined the federal government’s pledge of 100 million euros to push forward the retrieval efforts. This should serve as a warning sign that in the future, munitions – or other items – were not simply dumped into the seas. At the latest in early 2024, the construction of a mobile marine disposal facility would begin, followed with pilot retrieval missions at the latest in 2025 in the German areas of the Baltic Sea. The plan was to continue this work in collaboration with other Baltic Sea nations. That, like so many marine protection goals, could only be achieved in joint efforts. All of these had to be pursued vigorously. Mr Philipp da Cunha noted that the BSPC had just completed its Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity, one of the organisation’s many efforts in that field. The group had investigated the situation in the Arctic on site in Tromsø, learning how much faster warming is happening there. Mr da Cunha wondered how the cooperation of the responsible ministers in the Baltic Sea region could be reinforced. He noted the working group’s in-depth examination of peatlands and respective emissions, asking how their importance could be underlined more strongly. Ms Steffi Lemke saw the collaboration between the European ministers on the environment as excellent, explicitly including Norway. In times like these, with so many challenges, it was important for parliamentarians to keep highlighting marine protection. The same applied to peatlands the draining of which had significantly contributed to increased CO 2 emissions. While this had created prosperity, it was now threatening to destroy it, so that the draining had to be reversed. In Germany, four billion euros had been provided through the programme Natural Climate Protection until 2025 for the renaturation of ecosystems. Using nature to combat climate change was a vital tool that she expected to play a major role at the COP in Dubai. Ms Anna Kassautzki underlined that the working group had discussed not only the state of the Baltic Sea but had also dealt intensively with peatlands. It had been a fruitful discussion across country and party borders. Mr Andreas Schoop of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum applauded the sea-dumped munitions problem finally being tackled. He wondered if the Baltic Future Conference could lead to a breakthrough and bringing all the countries together to solve the problem. Ms Steffi Lemke perceived a lot of attention surrounding that conference. She hoped for a powerful resolution, not just about ammunition but also concerning the climate crisis, global warming, and in particular the influx of nitrates and phosphates into the Baltic Sea. Whichever tools would be used, the influx had to be stopped. In that, she asked the parliamentarians to send a strong signal towards this goal so this would be in that resolution. Speech by Ms Emma Nohrén , Chair of the Committee on Environment and Agriculture; Member of the Swedish BSPC Delegation Ms Emma Nohrén spoke about how Sweden was dealing with complex environmental objectives. As a PhD student, she had been working with shallow soft sediment bottoms. These issues had led her to become a politician. Sweden had started its environmental objectives system in 1999, with the overall goal of solving the major environmental problems without increasing environmental and health problems outside Swedish borders. A council of scientists had been convened to provide suggestions on sharpening the approach to the government. Unfortunately, the advice had not fit with other political objectives, such as labour. 13 years earlier, a cross-party committee on environmental objectives had been established instead. This worked on complex issues outside every-day politics together with scientific experts to find solutions. Many reports had been produced, chief among them the 2016 report making Sweden the first country in the world to set a net-zero emissions target. In 2017, the first UN Oceans Conference had been held in Sweden. In the course of that, this committee had been charged with developing a marine strategy for the country. Ms Nohrén had been appointed chair, adding that members of all political parties were represented. It had been important to her to have experts on law, science, and everything in-between. The approach in Sweden was to have a 360° look around society, involving stakeholders, NGOs, municipalities. In this case, that also meant seafood chefs, small- and large-scale fishermen, local councils. If data was lacking in a specific area, the committee could commission reports. The mission statement was not to overcome any and all problems but to make sure they were acknowledged and addressed. This included the view that ocean and climate issues were intertwined. Their work ended with more than a hundred proposals, backed by all the parties in the Swedish parliament. These covered changes in responsibilities, various laws as well as minor alterations. Moreover, she had been able to take the Swedish proposals and raise them to the EU level. Afterwards, the committee had turned to the climate footprint of Sweden, again with the support of all parties. As the first country, they had come up with a proposal for long-time targets for Swedish emissions. This way of working had proven successful in Sweden, in particular on the complex topic of marine issues. Speech by Mr Christoph Humborg , Professor of Coastal Biogeochemistry and Scientific Director of Baltic Sea Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden Prof Christoph Humborg addressed coastal seas as key areas for climate change . Yet they had been mistreated for decades, with massive repercussions. The Baltic Sea was a poster child for this, being entirely surrounded by land and only connected to other waters through the Danish strait. Thus, the water residence time was about 30 years, retaining the pollutants longer than, e.g., the North Sea. From a scientific point of view, resilience was achieved by a higher biodiversity. It was the basis for successful fisheries, made the system more fit to cope with heatwaves, and it could serve as a carbon sink for climate mitigation. The average temperature across a hundred years had increased near the Finnish coast by at least 2 degrees, at 30 metres depth. Heatwaves drove up those figures, leading to marine fauna dying. A higher biodiversity, though, allowed faster recovery from such shocks. There were clear synergies between water quality, biodiversity, and climate change. 100 years ago, a typical ecosystem had a high biodiversity, numerous fish stocks, and key habitats like salt marshes and seagrasses binding carbon into the soil. Prof Humborg underlined that marine sediments were better carbon sinks than forest soils. In the present day, due to eutrophication, they had turned into carbon sources, much like previously mentioned peatlands. In Swedish coastal waters, methane emissions were on the order of 4 – 5 million tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. For the entire Baltic Sea, it was more than 10 million tonnes. Massive so-called dead zones were formed by algal blooms – caused through fertilizer influx into the sea – sinking to the sea floor. Yet there was hope, Prof Humborg underlined: The HELCOM Action Plan had contributed to lowering the nitrate and phosphate input, mainly through sewage treatment. This was unprecedented globally. The Baltic Sea region was one of only a few that had managed to reduce its nutrient inputs. Yet it was a long-term process: It had taken 50 years to ruin the Baltic Sea, cleaning it up would take another 50 years. Regarding fishery in the Baltic Sea, that was a disaster. For decades, more than 20 % of fish stocks were removed, threatening a crash of the population. The EU’s policy of squeezing as much fish as possible while just maintaining stocks was detrimental in a sea sensitive to such pressures. At the same time, scientific advice had often been too optimistic. Moreover, fishermen often fished a little more than advised. This had led to the cod population crashing. The situation for herring was not much better. Worse, he criticised that more than 90 % of all fish caught in the Baltic Sea was not for human consumption but fish meal or fish oil. His recommendations to achieve a resilient Baltic Sea were to first implement the Baltic Sea Action Plan, reducing the inputs into the ocean, and also implement the Green Deal as well as the Farm To Fork Strategy. A better water quality was the basis for a better biodiversity which in turn would switch the system from a carbon source to a carbon sink. Secondly, fishing should be done more carefully, eliminating big trawler and maximised approaches. That also created more jobs for local fishermen. Thirdly, and significantly, ocean sediments had to be returned to carbon sinks, removing the dead zones, by restoring biodiversity. Speech by Mr Ronald Lieske , Director of the Managing Authority and Joint Secretariat of Interreg Baltic Sea Region Mr Ronald Lieske coordinated a 25-years-old funding programme for the Baltic Sea region, on behalf of the local countries and the EU. The programme covered the eight EU Baltic Sea countries and the southern part of Norway, working with companies and organisations of at least three countries. His side also provided structural support to bring together cultures, different perspectives and expertise together to develop joint solutions. The four funding priorities were innovative societies, water-smart societies, and climate-neutral societies. The resilience of the marine ecosyste m was part of the water-smart societies. In addition, their fourth priority serviced technical support for the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. The main target groups were institutions implementing solutions – such as the NGOs in the regions and cities. Knowledge was to be shared, solutions tested, and ideas transferred between the regions. His side was part of the EU Cohesion Policy. As such, they were part of the EU seven-year funding scheme, currently in the 2021 – 2027 period. 14 months after the start, two thirds of the funds of 250 million euros had already been allocated, for 85 projects of different scales with 880 project partners from all region countries. Looking at solutions for marine resilience, his side was working on e.g., improving wastewater treatment systems, promoting sustainable agricultural practices, combating invasive species, adapting coastal systems to the effects of climate change, efficient water use and recycling, developing early warning systems to reduce the risks from natural and man-made hazards. Local knowledge was incorporated into the planning and decision-making processes. One specific project was testing water treatment processes to help water utilities better remove organic micro pollutants from the wastewater, developing guidelines in cooperation with HELCOM. It would be rolled out from pilot projects to countries all around the Baltic Sea. Another project was about harmonising land and maritime planning of various involved authorities, such as integrating the needs of offshore wind energy and tourism. This was an example of their bottom-up approach, with cities stating their needs and receiving support from the level of HELCOM or even the EU. As for dumped munitions, a call had been put out to get the best corporations working on the issue. Several of Mr Lieske’s side’s projects in previous funding periods had already targeted the problem, such as DAEMON II. The funds allocated for this goal were only 5 million euros but had to be considered on top of the 100 million euros provided by the German federal government. Strengthening marine resilience was a long-term goal that could only be solved by collaboration from all nations. Mr Simon Påvals was concerned with sustainable fishing quotas, especially the trawling of breeding herring in the Gulf of Bothnia. He asked Ms Nohrén how to make sure to protect small-scale coastal fishing as well as how to move the matter more effectively up to the international stage. Ms Emma Nohrén replied that her Swedish committee had already been aware three years earlier when that project had been completed. Although work had been done, it was still necessary to move the trawling zone further from the shore, lower the quotas, and perhaps ban industrial trawling in general. Prof Christoph Humborg added that Sweden and Finland were collaborating on the EU level since fisheries were most closely associated with policies. He noted that trawling was rightfully forbidden in the Great Lakes region in the USA, which was comparable to the Baltic Sea. When quotas were negotiated, the Baltic Sea should be treated as a special case because it was so different from the North Sea and the open Atlantic. Mr Wille Valve pointed out that there had been great success in reducing nutrient inflows since the 1980s although it might be the next generation to see a healthy Baltic Sea. Yet much more had to be done, and he called on his colleagues to make the Baltic Sea great again. Ms Alicia Wach , BSPYF, noted that as an environmental scientist, she had just worked on a project with GEOMAR in Kiel on carbon capture methods. The IPCC considered them vital tools for climate neutrality. She noted that seaweed fields could take up 35 times more carbon than rainforests in the Amazon, yet they were under pressure from agriculture and rising water temperatures. They should be protected through legislative measures. Secondly, carbon capture and storage was about trapping industrial emissions before reaching the air; although a somewhat risky process, the carbon could be bound to the sediment below the Baltic Sea. She encouraged the parliamentarians to look further at both methods.

Facing the Sea-Change in Politics With contributions from high-level representatives and partner organisations, the 32 nd BSPC Conference reaffirmed the realisation of the deep changes wrought by the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine and the need for reinforced resilience by the democratic nations of the Baltic Sea region, on the levels of defence, energy self-sufficiency, economy as well as society and in the digital sphere. Strengthening the Resilience of the Democratic Baltic Sea Region. Opening session BSPC President and head of the German Bundestag delegation Johannes Schraps welcomed the 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference to the Bundestag plenary hall. He called on the delegates to deepen Baltic Sea cooperation and to set a decisive course for a better future of the Baltic Sea region and beyond. Welcome Address by Ms Bärbel Bas, President of the German Bundestag President of the German Bundestag Bärbel Bas welcomed the delegates, pointing out that Berlin had once been a member of the Hanseatic League. She underlined the importance of the Baltic Sea region for her and the entire German Bundestag. In that respect, she thanked Mr Schraps for guiding the BSPC during an unusually tumultuous period. This was marked by the brutal attack of Russia on Ukraine which had led to a rupture within the BSPC as the Russian delegations left and the democratic countries jointly condemned the assault. Ms Bas highlighted her close cooperation with her Ukrainian counterpart, Mr Ruslan Stefanchuk, and her own visit to Kyiv. It was crucial to her that the support for Ukraine must not wane. The democratic nations had to – and would – stand by Ukraine. After Russia’s departure from the Baltic Sea institutions, it was important for the other countries to cooperate ever more closely, both within the BSPC and the CBSS. Other cooperation formats were thriving, such as the EU and NATO. The accession of Finland and soon Sweden was reinforcing the alliance and the deterrence. Ms Bas highlighted the importance of the BSPC as discussing not just across country borders but also across parliamentary groups. Parliamentarians were closer to the citizens’ needs and wants than governments. Furthermore, the Bundestag president saw the strength of the BSPC in bringing together regional and national parliaments as well as international organisations. This had made the BSPC a particularly valuable format of dialogue, for now more than thirty years. The topic of this conference, the democratic and digital resilience, was vital because the openness of democratic societies made them vulnerable to attacks from enemies of democracy. Propaganda, hatred, and misinformation was spreading rapidly via social media and Telegram channels. Democrats had to defend themselves, online and offline. In that, they needed a strict prosecution with all the means provided by democratic law; platform and channel operators had to be held accountable; it was necessary to learn from each other about the most important strategies. Especially the Baltic Sea region was frequently the target of hybrid attacks, yet she cited a media study showing that these countries were leading in media competency. The best source of resilience was the citizens themselves. Well-informed citizens were needed to defend against disinformation, along with strengthened political involvement. Therefore, she appreciated the inclusion of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum’s participants and their ideas in this conference. Bundestag-President Bas called the Baltic Sea region a key area in Europe in which some of the decisions in the most important policy fields were made, such as climate change and the protection of maritime ecosystems. It was crucial to defend the Baltic Sea region as a place of good neighbourliness. BSPC President Johannes Schraps reiterated on the democratic parliaments’ condemnation of the brutal depravities committed by Russian forces in Ukraine, trampling on the principles that had been cornerstones of peace and stability for many decades. The reactions and decisions in the democratic nations were illustrated by the term “Zeitenwende”, coined by German chancellor Olaf Scholz. Division and fragmentation had to be avoided, and unity had to be the signal to the world. The BSPC had done so by recently reforging the foundation of cooperation, reacting clearly and consistently to the Russian war of aggression. Despite fundamental differences in some issues, the BSPC had continued to find unanimous decisions. These times of several crises were a turning point for this generation, requiring fundamental rethinking in societies. As such, in the past year, the BSPC had dealt mainly with climate change and biodiversity, sea-dumped ammunition in the Baltic Sea, and the strengthening of youth participation. He highlighted the efforts to remove the ammunition, developing new technologies, and that this problem had to be tackled right away. On climate change, he stressed recent breakthroughs on the expansion of marine protected areas, the renaturation of peatlands. The BSPC had kept its word in carrying the voice of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum into its resolution and its calls to governments. Not least through cooperating with HELCOM and the CBSS, the BSPC had shown that it was present. It had realised what it had set out to do: that the parliamentary dimension of cooperation in the Baltic Sea region was and would remain a motor for further development, direction and setting an example far beyond. First session Addresses by Representatives of other Parliamentary Assemblies, International Guests and BSPC Observer Organisations Ms Carola Veit and Mr Himanshu Gulati chaired this part of the session dedicated to the partner organisations of the BSPC. Speech by Ms Manuela Schwesig, Vice President of the German Bundesrat, Prime Minister of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Prime Minister Manuela Schwesig underscored the work of the BSPC since 1991 for a free and democratic Baltic Sea region. She also stressed the importance of involving young people and promoting their enthusiasm for liberty and the unity of the Baltic Sea countries. That was part of the defence against the divisive poison of hate and racism seeking to spread in each of those countries. The constitution of her federal state enshrined Baltic Sea cooperation, which was why Mecklenburg-Vorpommern had cultural, economic, and social ties to the other countries of the region. This made the rupture through Putin’s Russia all the more threatening, reinforcing the need to support Ukraine without question. Like the BSPC, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern also severed its ties to the St Petersburg region. A result of this rupture had to be all the other countries in the democratic Baltic Sea region moving further together. In light of the topic of resilience, this meant the security cooperation between nations and the safety of the critical infrastructure. As such, Germany had committed to reinforcing the security of the Baltic countries, with soldiers from her federal state serving to protect Lithuania. Cooperation also had to be strengthened in using the huge potential of the Baltic Sea region for renewable energies. The region could be a pioneer for living environmentally friendly, generating but also exporting energy and in peace and harmony. Ms Schwesig further underscored the efforts by Germany and other CBSS nations to clear the sea-dumped ammunition from the Baltic Sea, not least with the technologies and companies from her federal state. Speech by Ms Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam, President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam saw the Euro-Atlantic area at a crossroads, with the trans-Atlantic partners determined to defend the values of democracy, freedom, and the right of all nations to determine their destiny. The Vilnius meeting had established the NATO-Ukraine Council, along with the unambiguous statement that Ukraine’s rightful place was in NATO. The meeting had also yielded the most comprehensive defence plan since the Cold War. Security would be reinforced in the Baltic Sea and along the entire eastern flank. They could not afford complacency, though, as evidenced by the warning calls from the Baltic Sea region after Russia’s previous wars of aggression went unheeded. To that end, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly had proposed the establishment of a Centre for Democratic Resilience at NATO HQ as a resource in the face of threats to the very democracy. This could help to defend against Russia and China which were using all their tools to export their authoritarian model. Speech by Mr Asaf Hajief, Secretary-General of the PABSEC Secretary-General of the PABSEC Asaf Hajief regretted that neither the Ukrainian president nor vice-president of the organisation could join the conference because of the situation in their home country. He conveyed their best regards. The Black Sea was an important part of the world due to its geographical location as a bridge between Europe and Asia and its energy resources. Yet peace and stability were difficult to establish as there were seven conflicts among the thirteen countries in PABSEC. One of the results was the number of refugees which had reached 100 million worldwide. He called for a quick resolution in the framework of international law, with sovereignty and territorial integrity as the basis. The world was not huge but microscopic; it was their duty to bring peace, security, and prosperity to it. Speech by Mr Grzegorz Poznański, Director General CBSS Ambassador Grzegorz Poznański applauded the multi-level governance between different institutions by their organisations to implement the basic goals of the region’s people: a safe, secure, and prosperous region. He also cherished the youth engagement of the CBSS and the BSPC. Resilience would be the cornerstone of the upcoming Finnish presidency of the CBSS, a crucial topic for all of Europe, as reflected by the organisation’s long-standing efforts concerning climate change as well as educating the public about resilience. An online course for the entire region would be available in the future. In order to respond to the various crises, current and future ones, cooperation was necessary between institutions, states, within states and institutions. But that also required a well-educated, well-informed, and well-involved society. Mr Poznański also highlighted the BSPC resolution on sea-dumped ammunitions which had brought about concerted efforts by the CBSS, HELCOM, and the individual nations and regions. Speech by Mr Jens William Grav, Coordinator Baltic Sea NGO Network, Denmark Coordinator Baltic Sea NGO Network Jens William Grav explained that his network’s goal was to bring together and connect NGOs from various countries in the region. People-to-people contact and human rights issues had always been a focus in their cooperation. Until 2022, that had involved Russian NGOs, yet that was no longer possible. He likened the Ukraine of today to Yugoslavia of the 1990s and wished that one day, a rapprochement in the current crisis could also become possible. He regretted that his network had lost platforms in Germany and Finland, but he offered his remaining network to the BSPC for cooperation. He mentioned the Swedish platform’s work on education and the Polish counterpart’s on tourism issues. In Denmark, they were working on bringing the cultures and societies of other Baltic Sea region countries to the local populace’s attention, in coordination with the respective embassies. Peaceful and reliable neighbourliness and intense cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region on the basis of fundamental values BSPC President Johannes Schraps and Vice-President Staffan Eklöf co-chaired the second part of the first session. Video message by Ms Annalena Baerbock, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs, Germany Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock cited the frequently used phrase “Our unity is our life insurance” as one of the great lessons from the Russian war of aggression. That was why the nations had put their cooperation in the Baltic Sea region on a new level recently, to protect and better use it, in particular in terms of renewable energy. Reducing fossil dependency not only benefited climate but also increased the security of the people in the region. Removing the vast amounts of sea-dumped ammunition was a vital project, and she thanked the BSPC for repeatedly raising this issue. The BSPC was about doing things better, for the unity of the societies around the Baltic Sea. Video message by Ms Elina Valtonen, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Finland Minister for Foreign Affairs Elina Valtonen stated the security ramifications of the Russian war of aggression, leading to Finland joining NATO. Baltic Sea countries had to cooperate ever more closely, in formats such as the CBSS and the BSPC. Finland’s current presidency of the CBSS was headlined by Comprehensive Security, Crisis Preparedness, and Resilience. Comprehensive security reinforced the links between the authorities, the business community, organisations, and citizens. They would look into civil defence and interfacing the roles of various actors. Moreover, they would emphasise the work against human trafficking as well as solutions to underwater ammunitions. Youth would remain a visible key part. She was looking forward to continuing constructive cooperation. Video message by Mr Margus Tsahkna, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Estonia Minister for Foreign Affairs Margus Tsahkna saw this year’s conference’s topic of Strengthening the Resilience of the Baltic Sea Region as of the utmost importance given the present challenges. Reinforced cooperation was required. He praised Ukrainians’ resilience and their strong commitment to fundamental values. Ukraine had to be supported thoroughly, and Russia’s leaders had to be held accountable for the horrors committed in Ukraine. Strengthening the resilience in the Baltic Sea region also meant reinforcing social cohesion, bolstering economic and digital security, fortifying internal security, reinforcing national defence, and fostering efficient cooperation with reliable neighbours. Preparedness for a diverse range of crises was vital. For Estonia, energy independence was crucial, thus they supported cooperation on renewable energy such as wind farms. But digital resilience against conspiracy theories and disinformation was as crucial as defence against cyber threats. BSPC Vice President Staffan Eklöf yielded the floor to the speakers in the open debate segment of the first session. Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle underlined the dreams of prosperity, democracy, and peace shared by the attendees made them stronger. To her, Germany and especially Berlin were symbols of that: Berlin not only was a warning of what must not happen again, it was also a sign of hope as a united city. Freedom from tyranny was possible. However, like in the 1930s, the world was changing once again, in countries once called democracies. Polarisation sadly was working, especially through “internet warriors”, leading to events like Brexit or the January 6 insurrection in Washington. She called on her colleagues to not be naïve about the possibility of fascism returning. Therefore, the BSPC and its cooperation was more crucial than one might think. It was necessary to listen and to respect each other’s differences.

In preparation for the 32 nd Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on 27-29 August 2023, the BSPC’s Rapporteur on Sea Dumped Munitions, MP Anna Kassautzki, has issued her report, which deals with dumped munitions and unexploded ordnance in the Baltic Sea. This report builds on the intensive activities of the BSPC and progress in international cooperation in this field from last year. The report provides a general overview of the current situation, parliamentary and governmental activities, and existing challenges in dealing with the legacy, presentsnew developments and findings in technological and scientific terms, and provides insight into the current state of the situation. Following the 28 th , 29 th , 30 th and 31 st BSPC resolutionsand referring to the planned calls for action in the 32 nd BSPC resolution, conclusions are drawn on the state of implementation. Finally, the Rapporteur elaborates on proposals on how the Baltic Sea countries can efficiently use the existing knowledge and technology to solve the problem of sea-dumped munitions and unexploded ordnance in the Baltic Sea with various links to additional materials. The report can be downloaded h ere and on the R apporteurs’s webpage.

In preparation for the 32 nd. Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on 27-29 August 2023, the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity (CCB) published its Final Report on its activities throughout the past three years. The Chairman will present the report at the 32 nd Annual Conference. It includes the deliberations and a compilation of the materials discussed by the Working Group. The report also offers detailed information on the expert presentations carried out by the Working Group. The content refers in many places with links to other materials already published on the website, particularly the detailed reports about the sessions and can be accessed here and at the Working Groups website . The report contains all political recommendations incorporated in the resolutions of the 30 th and 31 st Conference, statements of the Baltic Sea region governments about the implementation of these recommendations and 25 far-reaching and ambitious final calls for action on climate and biodiversity that have been incorporated in the 32 nd draft of the BSPC Resolution. These recommendations call on governments to increase efforts in implementing national climate targets, strengthen regional collaboration, encourage renewable energy development, and transition from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy systems. They also emphasise the need to urge the world’s three largest CO2 emitters to step up their efforts to achieve ambitious climate targets, incentivise renewable energy development, and address the risks associated with increasing dependence on rare metal suppliers. The WG also urges the implementation of coastal management plans to protect and restore coastal ecosystems, support research and innovation in climate change mitigation and adaptation technologies and promote cross-border cooperation on regional climate initiatives. The Working Group highlights halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030 while ensuring inclusive, socially, and environmentally sustainable economic growth and development. The Baltic Sea Action Plan and its associated action documents should be implemented quickly and strictly to achieve good ecological status by the decade’s end. Regional strategies should be developed to deal with transboundary emergencies caused by climate change and pollution. The report also provides examples of best practices in climate change and biodiversity from the Baltic States. They accentuate regional cooperation and support for clean environments, biodiversity protection, climate change mitigation, soils and cooperation on greenhouse gas inventory. The recommendations address the most recent international developments and agreements in these areas. The urgency of further, consistent, and comprehensive measures in these policy fields is emphasised. The report should be considered a strategic summary of the BSPC WG CCB’s work.

BSPC Observer on HELCOM, Ms Beate Schlupp, First Vice-President of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, has published her 2022-2023 Report on HELCOM-related developments and activities. The present publication covers the main highlights of the cooperation between the BSPC and HELCOM and the core developments in HELCOM’s work from October 2021 to July 2023. It provides a summary of the presentations held by HELCOM representatives at the 31 st BSPC in Stockholm, in the meetings of the BSPC Standing Committee, the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity and the BSPC Secretariat, as well as the communication between HELCOM and BSPC HELCOM Observer Beate Schlupp – with a particular focus on nutrient inputs, biodiversity and climate change as well as sea-dumped munitions. The report also details the results of the HELCOM ministerial meeting on 21 October 2021 in Lübeck and HELCOM’s activities at the current time of Russia’s unprovoked, unjustifiable, and illegal war of aggression against Ukraine. The report further includes information about the Latvian Helcom Chairmanship 2022-2024. It summarises several more notable past events, particularly the Baltic stakeholder conferences of the past two years. It informs about HELCOM’s global engagement and commitments and includes some prospects and outlooks, also in the cooperation between the BSPC and HELCOM. The Report can be downloaded here and on the Rapporteur’s webpage .

The BSPC’s Rapporteurs on Integrated Maritime Policy, MP Philipp da Cunha and MP Jörgen Pettersson have issued their comprehensive Report 2022 – 2023 on Developments in Integrated Maritime Policy. The report once again underlines the crucial importance of maritime issues and challenges in the BSPC’s work. It summarises – in addition to the oral report during the 31 st BSPC – the developments in the Integrated Maritime Policy since the 30 th BSPC. It informs about the Maritime Rapporteurs’ activities, important conferences, and events over the past two years. The Report focuses on energy and security issues and infrastructural and environmental aspects of maritime policy. It also presents legislative developments and overarching elements. The Report again addresses the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Maritime policy and the Maritime economy and refers to the effects of Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. Significant attention is being directed towards several key sectors, namely cruise shipping, shipyards, supply chains and the twin green and digital transition. Emerging sectors, such as the Blue Bioeconomy, are also discussed. The report also addresses ocean governance, with the EU’s commitment to conserve and sustain marine biodiversity. The Report can be downloaded here and on the Rapporteur’s webpage .

The BSPC Rapporteur on Sustainable Tourism, Ms Birgit Hesse, President of the State Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, has published her comprehensive 2022 –2023 Report on Developments in Sustainable Tourism. This fifth BSPC Report on Sustainable Tourism in the Baltic Sea Region follows the established tradition. It provides an overview of the region’s recent political trends and projects connected to sustainable tourism. In addition, it presents the main developments in sustainable tourism, informs about the core meetings and events of the past two years, and contains prospects and outlooks. The introduction provides comparative figures on the development in this policy field. It includes information on the current and further impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine on the tourism sector and further crises. In this respect, it serves as a basis for discussing tourism development in the Baltic Sea region, considering the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the current and future challenges but also offers a reflection on the prospects aiming at raising the sustainability and resilience of Baltic Sea tourism in the future. The report can be downloaded here and on the Rapporteur’s webpage.

The Standing Committee of the BSPC met in the Ozeaneum of Stralsund, Germany – face to face with the ‘population’ of the Baltic Sea. They engaged with presentations on ocean science and literacy, the protection of the Baltic Sea, and its meaning for the region. Another presentation highlighted the importance of peatland restoration in climate change mitigation and strengthening the region’s resilience. After that, the Standing Committee was informed about the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity’s results after three years of work, agreed on the subsequent working group and discussed possible contents of the 32 nd BSPC Resolution. About 35 participants, representatives and delegations of the BSPC members from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, Estonia, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Iceland, Latvia, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the Nordic Council, Norway, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden participated in the meeting. Introduction BSPC President Johannes Schraps opened the meeting, praising the UNESCO World Heritage site of their host city, Stralsund, and its long history in Baltic cooperation, from the Hanseatic League over having been part of Sweden. He also noted that the CBSS Foreign Ministers’ Summit and the VASAB Ministerial Conference had just occurred in Stralsund’s sister city of Wismar. President Schraps had participated in the CBSS summit. Presentations Prof Dr Burkard Baschek , the Scientific Director of the Ozeaneum, welcomed the Standing Committee to the facility. He explained that the German Ocean Museum consisted of four museums: the now fifteen-year-old Ozeaneum, the old Marine Museum, the Natureum, and the Nautineum. He underlined that the task of a museum, such as the Ozeaneum, was to educate, in this case, to bring across knowledge and understanding of the oceans. He said there were many daunting tasks ahead of the Baltic Sea region, such as climate change, the war in Ukraine, and the many stresses on the ocean itself. The need to act was very urgent. Resilience was key in what had to be implemented – in preserving democracy and giving the people a perspective for the future but also in strengthening ecosystems on land and in the sea during climate change. Only a truly healthy ecosystem could make it into the future. The problem was that, on the one hand, ecosystems had already been under duress before climate change, and, on the other, no one really knew what a healthy ecosystem actually looked like. They had lost the baseline of what that was. It was easy to destroy something but much harder to recover. Decision-makers had to keep in mind that protection was vital. At the German Ocean Museum, their work dealt much with marine mammals, such as the harbour porpoise. There were western and eastern populations, with the western still healthy but the eastern facing extinction. Among others, by-catch in fishing was a problem. There was also good news as the grey seal was returning, although fishing conflicts had to be tackled. Prof Baschek himself was a physical oceanographer rather than a biologist. His field brought together much of the Ozeaneum’s tasks, both biological and physical processes. In particular, he worked on small ocean eddies – currents transporting nutrients, oxygen, and energy. They were meandering back and forth, moving around. Science was only now realising how important the small ones were in stirring up the ocean and fuelling the water’s life. Very short-lived at around 12 hours, up to a few kilometres in size, they were everywhere and were estimated to provide half of the global phytoplankton production. Phytoplankton generated half of the world’s oxygen; thus, small ocean eddies created every fourth breath a human took. Prof Baschek stressed that this process had long been overlooked and thus was not included in ocean modelling. Likewise, many other unknowns in the oceans had major impacts on the world. At the same time, he stressed that having such unknowns could not be an excuse not to act against climate change. The museum’s job was to explore the oceans in their many facets and to supply facts. Decision-makers had to consider these facts but also demands from the population and other aspects. He closed by pointing out that even to the informed observer, it was difficult to picture what was going on in the oceans below the surface. If that devastation were happening on land, there would be a huge outcry. Thus, he called for fully protected marine areas. Just because something was hidden from view did not mean that it did not need protection. Ms Anna Kassautzki remarked that the lack of borders in the oceans made cooperation as in the BSPC so necessary. Ms Eka von Kalben asked if complete protection was possible. Secretary General Bodo Bahr wondered if closer cooperation with the polar ocean researchers could benefit work in the Baltic Sea. He further asked if recent climate change and biodiversity treaties would include enough measures or if more was needed. Prof Baschek stated that the ocean could not be fully protected, with zero impact of any sort. Even in the Mariana Trench, plastic waste could be found; climate change would eventually reach every part of the ocean. However, the immediate impact from, e.g., fisheries, tourism, or construction could be barred. He added that many impacts were not even considered, such as wind farms churning up the ocean and mixing the two-layer structure of the ocean, thus affecting the transport of nutrients. Furthermore, much could be done locally to improve the ocean’s health, such as the recovery of seagrass beds. Whether enough had been done in ocean protection, far strides had been taken, but more should be protected especially the coastal ocean. As to the different roles of science and politics, he found it crucial that science not step towards opinions but stick to facts. That would not preclude being pushy. Looking for joint solutions by all stakeholders for sustainable oceans was indispensable. Such solutions, found by the wealthy and well-educated nations of the Baltic Sea region, had to be simple enough to be translated to other regions of the world. Bodo Bahr noted that the intended BSPC’s calls to action to the governments included the protection of coastal regions and ecosystems. Representing the Interdisciplinary Centre for Baltic Sea Research at the University of Greifswald (IFZO), Prof Dr Sebastian van der Linden , one of the Speakers of the IFZO, and Dr Alexander Drost , the Academic Manager of the IFZO, said that the h umanities, social sciences, and biology came together in their studies of the Baltic Sea . All their teaching and networking were focused on this region, seeking to understand what kept the region together and what challenges lay ahead. Key was to transfer this knowledge and make it applicable. Dr Drost said that in 2019, the Centre had launched its conceptual phase. Financed by the Ministry of Science and Education, they had seven research clusters working in all fields, looking to integrate all the Baltic Sea region research at the University of Greifswald and make it more visible. One of the main elements of the IFZO was the annual conference which served to engender a dialogue between science and politics. The latest dealt with predictable futures and the impact of insecurity, with an eye to systemic risks. One finding was that crises rippled through other systems, with social responses amplifying some effects. The round table discussion, featuring representatives from several countries, considered the “Zeitenwende” (so-to-speak the sea change) in politics, society, trade, and science. He highlighted the idea of critical junctures, such as the present one, where the re-securitisation of the Baltic Sea region was part of an ongoing process, requiring new identities, changing policies, and the effects of the war in Ukraine. Here, early warning systems and guiding principles for national security efforts were needed. The issue of trust towards Russia had been addressed, along with the historic divide in western and eastern views. Dr Drost underscored that the war in Ukraine had not been the intended topic of the discussion but had dominated, nevertheless. Interdisciplinary research in the Baltic Sea region involved the sustainability transformation and other aspects requiring multiple points of view. By disseminating this knowledge through events, articles, and podcasts, the IFZO aimed to guide the transformation efforts. Examples of the IFZO’s work were presented, such as a paper on Lithuania proactively driving its energy independence from Russia which also strengthened the country’s resilience in terms of security. Another article dealt with the NATO expansion and the new role of Germany in the region, with a renewed willingness to engage militarily in the region’s defence. Thirdly, the idea of ocean literacy was the topic of a third publication, i.e., that people had to be enabled to act sustainably on the shores of the Baltic Sea, by teaching them the effects of their actions on the waters. Next, their research on health systems and innovations therein were mentioned, e.g., the respective digitisation. Cultural impacts on these transformation processes were also investigated, such as the meaning of the “Z” symbol in Russia. Humanities research on the region, as in the past 20 years of the centre’s work, had looked, for instance, into keeping the Baltic Sea region in the global context, such as in artistry. Recently, the IFZO had expanded its interdisciplinary range, now including natural sciences and geography. The latter supplemented the humanities and social sciences approach. For instance, a repository of geo data had been put together as basic information for further research. This was intended to be developed into an atlas. An example was looking into the massive forest fires in Poland between 2015 and 2021, analysing not only the damage but also the composition of tree species, post-fire recovery, or the impact of former Soviet military bases on the event. The IFZO was accompanying the transformation of the Baltic Sea region with relevant knowledge for the societies to cope with these processes. Their research was to promote further investigations. Moreover, the Baltic Sea region was to be perceived as a global area rather than the periphery of Europe. Finally, their data was to help preserve the natural space of the area. BSPC President Schraps noted that the discussion in the BSPC had changed since the departure of the Russian delegations. He wondered what opportunities the IFZO representatives saw in the new situation, e.g., to discuss new topics. Ms Bryndís Haraldsdóttir asked about the science community’s reaction to the severed ties with Russia. Ms Eka von Kalben contributed. Mr Enn Eesmaa asked if there were studies on possible harm that Russia could inflict on the west, such as the pollution in the St Petersburg area. Dr Drost noted that the block of Russia had forced scientists to remap their work into new networks, sometimes even stop projects altogether because there no longer was access to Russian archives. On the other hand, they could now evaluate how past decisions had been taken or not and what path dependencies had existed and could now be reformed. Furthermore, Dr Drost underlined that Russia’s actions would continue to impact the environment in the Baltic Sea region, regardless of diplomatic status. He concurred that the security issue, in particular with regard to Kaliningrad, had to be addressed. A respective policy brief had been produced by Polish researchers. Regarding cooperation with Russia, that was very difficult. Some countries forbade all official collaboration, although some individual contacts were continued, even though this had become more cumbersome. Moreover, a large number of Russian scientists supported their regime, making them and their information less trustworthy. Prof van der Linden added that the security issues had come to dominate the discussions at the centre, but his field of natural sciences allowed him to speak about the intentional flooding of the Kakhovka dam in southern Ukraine. His side was not analysing possible similar incidents, admitting that the idea of such warfare frightened him. Even more devastating processes were conceivable, such as intentional pollution or emissions. He doubted that something like that or, e.g., intentional forest fires could be stopped. Mr Enn Eesmaa painted a scenario of a staged terror attack on a nuclear site. Mr Staffan Eklöf asked if the IFZO also studied the shifts in domestic attitudes towards topics such as Russia. Dr Drost confirmed the latter. One of their clusters focused on new nationalism in the Baltic Sea region, dealing with the last 10 – 15 years and thus populism, right-wing movements, and the latter’s reach into youth. This was affecting the crises as well as the implementation of resilience patterns. The IFZO was organising its second summer school on anti-feminism and antisemitism this August. Mr Eklöf wondered about the root causes being studied rather than the responses, mentioning that cohesion and trust were diminishing, especially in areas with high numbers of immigrants in Sweden. Dr Drost noted that the roots were part of their social and humanities research, but responses were used in this field to determine the root causes. Data was first collected, then provided for analysis. At this point, they were still in the former stage in their cluster. As an example, he explained that in Latvia and Estonia, questionnaires were distributed in schools to determine the various attitudes between speakers of Latvian, Estonian, and Russian, looking for which terms were used to describe certain phenomena. This was analysed by historians, linguists, and political scientists, together with legal scientists. Mr Jan Peters , Managing Director of the Succow Foundation, spoke about peatlands and their key role in the European Green Deal policies. The Succow Foundation was one of the partners of the Greifswald Mire Centre, a science-policy interface, joined by the University of Greifswald. Their goal was to disseminate their findings into politics but also into society for a better understanding of peatland’s importance. An area was called peatland when the peat layer was at least 30 centimetres thick. Peat was organic soil formed in situ from died-off subsurface biomass under constant water conditions. With water, peat accumulated but decayed without. Functioning as a carbon sink, it was also key to biodiversity as well as nutrient and water retention, increasing climate change resilience. Drying peat emitted CO 2 , nitrous oxide, and methane. Thus, the carbon footprint of dairy products from drained peatlands was 4 – 5 times as high as that from other areas. Based on the extensive maps from the Greifswald Mire Centre, the Baltic Sea region was the most important peat area in Europe. This also included vast peatlands in Russia, Mr Peters noted. Unfortunately, 25 % of all peatlands in Europe were degraded, rising to 50 % within EU member states. In Germany, 95 % were drained. This was primarily due to agriculture and forestry but also peat extraction. The result was that a quarter of all agricultural and land use emissions in the EU stemmed from peatlands, despite taking up only 3 % of the area. Globally, the EU was the second-largest emitter of peatland carbon dioxide, right after Indonesia. Thus, it was necessary to rethink and restore peatlands. To that end, new ways of utilising and managing peatlands had to be developed. At the same time, the social component was required, visualising the end result and making it liveable. Alternative income options from wetted peat included paludiculture – wetland crops – or carbon farming schemes – rewarding emission reduction through private or public payment schemes. The products from peatlands could be used in construction, insulation, bioenergy and bio refinery. Mr Peters said that major rewetting efforts could turn the Baltic Sea region into an innovation cluster for paludiculture. Looking at the European Green Deal, peat was crucial to fulfilling the targets set in various policy directives, such as the carbon removing framework or the soil health law. Research, such as Horizon 2020 programmes, were supporting these efforts. Counteracting the Green Deal, though, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was unfortunately still the main driver of peatland degradation due to payments for drained areas. A new standard for good agricultural practice had been established in the CAP, including the protection of wetlands, but this was delayed in many member states until 2025. Even with the reforms, Mr Peters criticised the soft regulations and that little support was given to climate benefits such as rewetting efforts. He moved on to the EU Nature Restoration Law, the instrument for the 2030 Biodiversity Strategy, which focused on alternative uses of peatlands such as paludiculture rather than renaturalisation. The Succow Foundation had analysed what these measures meant in terms of meeting the climate targets in peatlands. By 2050, when the EU was planning to be climate-neutral, there would still be quite substantial emissions from peatlands, up to 25 – 30 megatons in Germany and up to 25 in Poland. The current plans failed to fully exploit the carbon reduction potential from rewetting peatlands. There were specific projects funded by the EU under the Horizon Green Deal call, the largest of which was the Waterlands Project, implementing action sites for rewetting as well as knowledge sites for research and data sharing. They were developing better practices for rewetting. Further projects were Alpha Wetlands and Wet Horizons generating data while OrgBalt dealt with organic soils and peatlands in the Baltic States. Mr Peters closed by saying that rewetted peatlands were still islands within drained seas. Conceding that paludiculture was more expensive than conventional land use, he hoped that the Green Deal policies would allow a return to living landscapes of benefit beyond the area itself. Ms Hanna Katrín Friðriksson asked how political support for rewetting purposes should exactly be implemented. Mr Staffan Eklöf recounted highly varied results of rewetting forest areas in Sweden, wondering how geology determined the most suitable sites. He further asked if carbon sequestration in wood was included in the calculation of CO 2 emissions. Ms Anna Kassautzki underlined that rewetted peatland could not catch fire as was currently the case in Germany, adding that the water retention of peatlands was highly desirable. Mr Peters agreed that support for farmers was crucial as individuals could not easily rewet their land alone. It was most important to find consensus among landowners and land users in one region, with a caretaker appoint to advise on and coordinate the process. He referred to a Dutch model of farming collectives. Here, he highlighted the concept of living labs which gave scientists and practitioners safe spaces to test their methods. Aside from farmers, the industry also had to be taken into account as they had to buy the products and thus finance the efforts. Regarding forest rewetting, Mr Peters concurred that it was a delicate and complex problem, adding that forestry, after all, was inherently a long-term business. At the same time, life-cycle analyses had to determine how the carbon originally sequestered in trees, whether in short-term products like paper or long-term storage such as construction. This was a knowledge gap, he conceded, that e.g., the University of Greifswald was currently working on. He cautioned that the long-term storage of peat should not be sacrificed to the short- or mid-term storage of wood grown on that land. He cited Finland’s continuous cover forestry as an excellent model which allowed the forest to remain while raising the water level. There was no one-size-fits-all solution, he underscored. Mr Peters went on to warn that wildfires, including peat fires, were accelerating at an alarming rate, releasing huge amounts of carbon. Thus, it was crucial to keep the water as long as possible in the land, establish local cooling measures and have good growth conditions for plants. Again, this pointed to Russia: His side had had a large-scale project on peat fires in European Russia which had been abandoned over the war in Ukraine. He called this a catastrophe for peatland protection. Mr Himanshu Gulati asked if recent behaviours had made the trends worse. Mr Enn Eesmaa stressed the importance of drinking water, wondering if the vast reservoir of fresh water in the Baltic Sea region might save southern regions in a future disaster. Mr Bodo Bahr pointed out that tropical forest countries used the continued large-scale CO2-emitting use of peatlands as an argument to maintain their behaviour concerning the use of tropical forests and wondered whether this argument continued to be significant in the international climate debate. Mr Peters did not see any change in the situation in recent years but cautioned that drained peatlands continued to emit carbon dioxide without there having to be new drainage operations. However, knowledge had changed, precisely the huge amount emitted by peat. Awareness had grown, but there was a long way to go before it was widely known by the public. Regarding drinking water, he underlined peatland’s sponge-like behaviour that could maintain water even in drought conditions. That helped keep the water level high in other regions. He pointed out that the German capital of Berlin received most of its drinking water from peatland. Similar rewetting efforts were pursued by Scottish water companies. He could not predict the future but stressed the manifold benefits of restoring peatlands. Considering the international sphere, he confirmed that this argument was still being made. Mr Peters called peatlands the Baltic Sea region’s rain forests. He noted their connections to Indonesia, citing the raging peat fires there and the government’s strict efforts to restore peatlands, already having restored two million hectares in two years – more than the EU had restored in its entire history. As the second-largest emitter, the EU also had the obligation – and the money – to act on a large scale. Policies had to support these efforts. Ms Kassautzki underlined that farmers were open to rewetting but needed guidance on how to do this and how to continue living with – and using – that land. On the other hand, the peat industry threatened that stricter regulations in Germany would make them harvest the peat in the Baltic States. Thus, she argued for joint efforts and regulations across borders to preserve peatlands. BSPC President Schraps joined in that, as a German politician, he did not appreciate seeing his country stand out on a map as the place that needed to do the most. The follow-up to the 31 st BSPC President Schraps announced that responses had been received from the governments of Åland, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland, Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden. Because of their elections, the answer from Finland would be sent later. All would be included in the compilation on the BSPC website. Considerations about the future accommodation of the BSPC Secretariat President Johannes Schraps summarised the previous considerations, developments and investigations into possibly establishing a future headquarters of the BSPC Secretariat, including possible options and diverging opinions by the members of the Standing Committee. After the completion of the Presidium in Brussels and the recent announcement of the agreement of all members to the increased contributions and thus the now available clarity about the financial basis, the working group could deepen now the previous discussions on the basis of further information, particularly about financial aspects that have been provided in the meantime as already envisaged. The Standing Committee agreed to the proposal of President Schraps to includethe former BSPC presidents Prof Jānis Vucāns and Ms Carola Veit, with their long-standing experience in that group. After further contributions by Ms Hanna Katrín Friðriksson, Prof Jānis Vucāns , Ms Carola Veit , Mr Enn Eesmaa , Mr Staffan Eklöf and Mr Jarosław Wałęsa on the consideration of the practical aspects, the secretariat, the financial side, the Rules of Procedure and the time frame of the process, Mr Schraps explained that the plan was for the Presidium’s working group to meet on 13 July 2023 and to present their findings to the first Standing Committee meeting under the Danish presidency in November 2023. The Standing Committee agreed with that procedure . Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity BSPC President Johannes Schraps noted that the working group had completed its three years of work at the meeting in Gdanśk on 15 May 2023 with 25 unanimously agreed calls for action to be included in the 32 nd BSPC resolution. BSPC Secretary General Bodo Bahr submitted a proposal to shorten the final report to a more manageable size, along with a political executive summary. The Standing Committee agreed to the proposal . New BSPC Working Group after the 32 nd Annual Conference President Schraps explained that the Latvian delegation, with support from the Baltic Assembly, had submitted a comprehensive proposal for a working group on energy security, self-sustainability, and connectivity. The Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein, represented by Ms Eka von Kalben , asked for the topic of Resilience to critical infrastructure to be added to the Latvian design. Mr Himanshu Gulati fully supported the Latvian proposal. Mr Staffan Eklöf equally agreed with the proposal, suggesting that interconnectivity and electricity prices also be included. Prof Jānis Vucāns clarified that this was a proposal from the Baltic Assembly, adding that the propositions from Schleswig-Holstein and Sweden were already part of the submitted range of topics but agreed to put more focus on these. The Standing Committee agreed to forward the proposal from the Baltic Assembly to the Conference for final approval. BSPC Rapporteurs BSPC Rapporteur on Sea-Dumped Munitions, Ms Anna Kassautzki , had attended an expert roundtable on the topic in December 2022, organised by the CBSS. They had discussed with researchers and representatives from NATO and the European Commission. Ms Kassautzki had submitted the proposals of the BSPC Working Group in this respect as well as the German government’s grant of 100 million euros to build a prototype mobile disposal platform. It had been consensus that enough data had been collected for action. The Baltic Sea should serve as the pioneering site for these technologies and processes. The EU was interested in funding further such disposal platforms once the prototype would prove successful. She underlined that several countries around the Baltic Sea were pursuing this topic. Prof Jānis Vucāns noted that the Baltic States would provide further reflections on this issue as part of the considerations on the draft resolution. President Johannes Schraps added that the topic of sea-dumped munitions had also been deepened at the Ministerial and VASAB meetings of the CBSS in Wismar one and a half weeks earlier. This proved that the parliamentary efforts of the BSPC worked and affected the government level. The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum President Schraps informed the Standing Committee about the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum in conjunction with the Conference. The topic would be Democracy Under Siege – How Do We Make Democracies More Resilient? 8 members of parliaments would work closely with the young participants to elaborate the recommendations of the Forum. The organisers were still looking for further experts and high-level speakers. A fireside session was intended for Saturday, featuring former BSPC President Franz Thönnes, who would talk about the history of the BSPC. The Secretariat and the CBSS were currently reviewing the applications. A virtual pre-meeting was planned to inform the youths about the BSPC’s workings and the Forum’s plans. Mr Staffan Eklöf suggested another member of the Swedish delegation to join the roundtable discussion. The 32 nd BSPC, Berlin, 27-29 August 2023 The title of the Conference was Strengthening the Resilience of the Democratic Baltic Sea Region – Boosting the Democratic, Maritime, and Digital Resilience and Reliable Neighbourliness and Close Cooperation. The propositions from the preceding Standing Committee meeting had been incorporated into the programme. The Standing Committee went on to discuss the contents of the Resolution for the Berlin Conference as well as the procedure to finalise the text in the run-up to the Conference. Mr Staffan Eklöf suggested regarding invasive species, lower fishing quotas, and that the many conflicting interests had to be balanced. Ms Anna Kassautzki commented on fish stocks, recommending a study on pike under various aspects. Ms Eka von Kalben addressed the further procedure. President Schraps underlined that amendment proposals could be submitted in writing by the end of the month. Ms Bryndís Haraldsdóttir noted that she would provide a proposal regarding human rights. Prof Jānis Vucāns presented some wording changes and a proposal on how to present an abstract on sea-dumped munitions. President Schraps and Secretary General Bahr were grateful for the text and agreed it would be shaped into the final form. Prof Vucāns stressed that it was important to show results achieved from the BSPC’s efforts, especially in this field. Further Matters At the Standing Committee meeting in Berlin, it had been agreed that the contributions from the members of the BSPC would be increased to make up for inflation since 2007 and considering the current composition of the membership. The SC was informed that the transfer of the increase in the membership fees to the BSPC from all members was expected soon. This provided the financial underpinning of the budget decided in Brussels. President Schraps noted that parliaments hosting BSPC meetings in the current year had already felt beneficial effects. BSPC President Johannes Schraps remarked that he had been invited to the CBSS Foreign Ministers’ Summit in Wismar, where he gave an impact statement on offshore wind, providing insight into the BSPC’s discussions and the parliamentary dimension, particularly on sea-dumped munitions. There had been the opportunity for additional conversations in the margins of the meeting with high-level representatives. Regarding the first Standing Committee meeting of the Danish presidency, upcoming President Henrik Møller stated that it would take place on 12-13 November 2023 in Maribo, where they could visit the Fehmarn Belt construction site. This was Denmark’s largest infrastructure project which would immensely shorten travel times between Scandinavia and Central Europe. Ms Jessy Eckerman confirmed that the Åland parliament would take over the presidency of the BSPC after the 33 rd annual conference in Denmark and hold the 2025 Conference in Mariehamn.

Statements of the Governments in the Baltic Sea Region to the 31 st BSPC Resolution The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) – gathered in Stockholm – unanimously passed on 14 June 2022 the following 31 st BSPC resolution: https://www.bspc.net/conference-resolution-31-bspc/ https://www.bspc.net/final-resolution__lv/ https://www.bspc.net/31-bspc-resolution-de/ https://www.bspc.net/conference-resolution-31-bspc_pl/ The priorities of the 31 st annual conference and resolution relate to: Peaceful and reliable neighbourliness and intense cooperation – how do we go forward in the Baltic Sea Region in times of crisis? Democracy and freedom of expression – how do we secure free media in the Baltic Sea Region? Mitigating climate change, preserving biodiversity and adapting to climate change Demographic challenges in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine; migration, labour market and the social welfare model It is customary that the delegations to the BSPC – or the parliaments as a whole based on an appropriate decision – inform their governments about the outcome of the respective annual conference. Furthermore, with the BSPC resolution, the delegations call on the governments in the Baltic Sea Region, the CBSS, the EU, and other pertinent actors to implement various actions or measures. The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and its Standing Committee highly appreciate that the governments from the Baltic Sea area again sent statements on implementing calls for action in the 31 st resolution. Many comments were detailed and essential for political development in the areas addressed. Some parliaments explicitly decide that their governments implement the resolution within their competencies and report to Parliament on its implementation. To receive a comprehensive overview of the actions taken by the governments in the Baltic Sea Region in response to the resolution of the 31 st Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, the members of the Standing Committee have asked their government to inform as far as possible on the following: Which measures, projects or actions have been a) planned, b) initiated, and c) implemented in support of the 31 st BSPC resolution, particularly regarding the calls for action? The statements and information the governments provide form a unique and valuable overview of developments in the respective policy fields in the Baltic Sea Region. Based on these statements and comprehensive information, parliamentarians can track progress in different policy fields and identify further action needs. The compilation will be updated as soon as further statements are received. You can download the statements of the governments here .

The BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity met for the final time in Gdańsk, Poland, to complete its intensive three-year-long work. Once more, the group listened to and discussed three expert presentations, two on nuclear power as part of the Polish strategy of transitioning away from fossil fuels and towards low-carbon energy systems and one on the Slovinski National Park and Biosphere Reserve. Afterwards, a lively discussion ensued to put together the group’s calls to action to the governments of the Baltic Sea region. The calls found unanimous approval in the end, underlining the excellent status of Baltic Sea parliamentary cooperation. About 25 participants from the Åland Islands, the Baltic Assembly, Denmark, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland and Sweden attended the deliberations. Introduction Working Group chairman Philipp da Cunha welcomed the members to their eighth and final meeting in Gdańsk, highlighting the city’s long and varied history and merits in Baltic Sea cooperation. Working Group vice-chairman Jarosław Wałęsa , member of the hosting Polish parliament, also underlined his hometown’s tradition of jointly finding solutions but pointed out the new geopolitical reality demanding that the Baltic Sea countries pave the way towards the future together. The sustainable transition also had to be viewed within the social dimensions. United in solidarity, the Baltic Sea region could provide a strong example to the world in these measures. Mr Kacper Płażyński , also member of the hosting Polish parliament and member of the Working Group, introducing the experts, noted the importance of nuclear power plants, particularly for the Polish strategy of transitioning away from fossil fuels and towards low-carbon energy systems. Presentations Professor Dagmara Strumińska-Parulska , PhD, Assoc. Prof., Faculty of Chemistry, Laboratory of Toxicology and Radiation Protection, University of Gdańsk, spoke about natural radioactivity and radioactive contamination, which should be treated differently . She took the Polish point of view, mentioning that it equally applied to Europe. Poland’s energy policy until 2040 had three pillars: fair transition, zero-emission energy – including offshore wind energy and nuclear power –, and good air quality. The plan called for 25 % of the country’s future energy supply to come from six nuclear reactors. Despite some concerns, the population’s support for nuclear power was increasing and was already the highest in Europe. She insisted that nobody had died in the accident at the Fukushima power plant in Japan but only in the causing earthquake and tsunami. As for the planned Polish power plant near Gdańsk, Prof Strumińska-Parulska noted that her university was uniquely suited to overseeing the environmental effects. She explained the radiation dose limits set by Polish law, allowing 20 mSv for employees but only 1 mSv for other persons. These applied to natural radiation. Much lower legal limits were used for nuclear power plants, permitting 0.3 mSv per year. The professor addressed the Chernobyl nuclear accident, noting that its fallout had mostly avoided Poland, despite the proximity, and that recent studies had shown its impact to be much lower than initially expected. She cited that the impact of plutonium and caesium in, e.g., fish or mushrooms was very low. Furthermore, she pointed out that natural radiation was often forgotten in the discussion, reminding the audience that it was always present, e.g., in water or food. About half the radiation absorbed by a typical person in the UK originates from natural radon gas. Nuclear medicine accounted for 16 % and growing. The impact from other manmade radionuclides was very small, she said. Prof Strumińska-Parulska stressed that natural radiation accounted for the vast majority of the impact, listing as sources air, water, food, supplements, and cigarettes. She repeated that natural radiation in everyday food and drink was not mentioned in the debate about nuclear power. Listing several foodstuffs or supplements that her department had tested – such as algae or calcium pills –, she concluded that these carried much higher doses from natural sources, although she still described these as safe. Going back to radon gas, this was by far the greatest radiation source, as it was also emitted from walls. Moreover, it could concentrate in buildings, increasing human intake. Thus, the Euratom guideline limited indoor intake to 300 Bq/m 3 . The natural radiation made it difficult to calculate the dose absorbed by an individual, harkening back to the legal limits mentioned before. While the background radiation was comparatively low in Poland, in Iran, for instance, it amounted to 200 mSv. These had to be removed from the equation to determine the manmade effect. The problem in general here was that regulations targeted artificial radionuclides but did not measure the naturally occurring ones, even though they had a huge impact on humans and other biota. This led to a knowledge gap in science and also lacking awareness of the natural radioactivity in materials used in industry. Mr Płażyński inquired about the Chernobyl radiation and at what point it became dangerous for human health. Prof Strumińska-Parulska said the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl reactor was 30 kilometres. While humans were not supposed to live there, animals did – yet they did not suffer from cancer or other diseases connected with radiation. She further said that the Chernobyl accident had been connected to the experiment rather than the proper operating facility. In the case of the Fukushima accident, there had been less harmful agents involved and contamination had been contained. Prof Jānis Vucāns noted a visit of the BSPC Standing Committee to a nuclear facility in Belarus in 2016 and a Minsk hospital for children suffering from Chernobyl-caused diseases. Given that the wind had spread radiation, he wondered about analyses of wind directions for the planned Polish power plants and what countries would be affected. Prof Strumińska-Parulska conceded that this was part of the discussions with neighbouring countries before stating that the new plant would be very different from Chernobyl, precluding a similar accident to an extremely high probability. Even if such an accident occurred, the effects would be local only. Ms Claudia Müller noted that the Chernobyl effects might have avoided Poland but had affected vast swaths of other countries where e.g., mushrooms were still not allowed to be eaten. Prof Strumińska-Parulska said that they could be safely eaten. Ms Müller further pointed out that the Fukushima plant had been built to withstand earthquakes yet had suffered the accident. Moreover, there were higher cancer rates in the region than typical. Prof Strumińska-Parulska remarked that humans had evolved within average radiation and had accommodated that. As for cancer cases, she said there were many possible sources, such as toxic substances. It was very difficult to determine what was the actual cause. Moreover, she reiterated that the natural radiation was much higher. Prof Gudowski interjected to note that there were regulations for the safe construction of nuclear power plants which would be followed, provided an explanation for the sick children in Belarus, and assured Ms Müller that mushrooms were safe to eat. Ms Emma Nohrén pointed to the problems in Sweden with cooling water for the power plant and the expected warming of the water. Prof Strumińska-Parulska said that this had been taken into account in the planning. Prof Dr hab. Wacław Gudowski , National Centre for Nuclear Research – Świerk and Royal Institute of Technology – KTH, Stockholm, Senior Advisor to Orlen Synthos Green Energy – OSGE, spoke about small nuclear reactors (SMRs) which he explained were a worthy investment . The discussion of nuclear energy was biased towards the negative – due to Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and other incidents – but ignored the benefits. Medium-sized energy plants dominated Poland’s energy system, but most of these units were already forty-plus years old and would have to be shut down for age anyway. Gas had been seen as the solution before the war in Ukraine, yet it had been known since the early 1990s that leakage of natural gas of more than 7 % was more damaging to the environment than coal or oil. He pointed out that Russia’s leakage was double that. So, gas was a poor environmental choice, to begin with. The question was with what to replace the ageing energy infrastructure, specifically how to provide a base level of stable energy rather than the uncertain renewables. Even with the large nuclear programme of the state, there was a gap of 10 gigawatts, though, which would have to be filled. He noted the excellent district heating system of the country, although the same system was releasing large volumes of particle matter into the atmosphere. The choice of nuclear power instead of fossil fuel sources was evident to Prof Gudowski because it was highly efficient in its chain reaction. As for waste products, he noted that plutonium could be reused. 95 % of this material could be easily recycled. A few grams of uranium produced the same energy as one tonne of coal, corresponding to the needs of one person per year and creating just as little waste. That radioactive waste was kept under control all the time. He said that nuclear energy was the only low-emission energy source, even lower than geothermal or hydro power. In addition, small nuclear reactors in particular required less real estate to provide equivalent power than all other energy sources. Regarding the waste, he spoke about intermediate storage but insisted that most of the material that would go into a final storage was still recyclable. He further said that an area the size of two Olympic-size pools was enough to store all the nuclear waste from forty years of production in Sweden for up to 200 years in intermediate storage. Prof Gudowski spoke about the succeeding generations of nuclear power types, leading up to the generation four which he had been involved in devising. This should ensure the recycling of most fuel and be sustainable. Normal light water reactors employed uranium enriched up to 5 %. Waste was currently not being recycled. In the 2000s, interest in nuclear energy picked up enormously, producing several new designs that would be smaller and more efficient. Looking at the current needs of the country, Poland decided that the VWRX 300 model was the best choice, fitting the grid and being a mature design. The OECD had also rated this model as the most mature technology. Deploying small nuclear reactors of this type would save a great deal of CO 2 equivalent. Prof Gudowski highlighted the safety mechanism which did not require pumps and could easily shut down the reactor in case of a most serious accident. Furthermore, they did not require a lot of space, just about the size of a football pitch. Equally, construction time was a great deal shorter. As for costs, estimates ranged from 1 to 1.5 billion US dollars until starting energy production. This, though, applied to the first unit. Economies of scale and serial production would bring costs down to about half of that for the final power plants. He underlined that the deployment process was in full swing, including discussions with the licensing bodies, the government, the research community and the potential industrial customers. Site selection had been based on safety, environment, and economics. He concluded by asking whether nuclear energy was safe. The death rate per unit of production was 0.03, much lower than fossil fuel. He further underlined that nuclear power was not expensive at all. Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle noted that in her home country of Norway, hydro power dominated so that a nuclear plant had recently been decommissioned at a cost of 2.5 billion Euros. In line with that, she wondered about Prof Gudowski saying nuclear waste was easy to dispose of. Regarding SMRs she was interested in the maturation timeline. Prof Wacław Gudowski believed his chosen model would be ready to be built in 2030. As for the costs, he noted that Sweden had started a decommissioning fund when building the reactors, decades ahead of time, so that was already covered. Furthermore, money earned during operations should be set aside to take care of dismantling costs. Mr Simon Påvals asked whether the CO 2 costs of nuclear power included the mining of uranium. Prof Gudowski explained that his data were taken from the International Panel of Climate Change, including the whole lifecycle analysis. To a second question about storage, the professor explained that geological storage would be needed for nuclear ashes, but he expected recycling capabilities for uranium and plutonium. Ms Claudia Müller deepened the topic of the economic viability of SMRs and the necessary protection of nuclear sites from terrorism and theft. Prof Gudowski said that the stakeholders should not be the deciding factors. Conceding that security was needed, he put the responsibility first on the political level, second on the building level. Furthermore, SMRs distributed any risk from a single strike disrupting the energy supply. Prof Jānis Vucāns wished for clarification on the economy of scale which would be of greater importance to the Baltic states. Prof Gudowski answered that the solution had to be tailored to the needs of the customer, adding that costs had come down in other countries for large-scale reactors. Mr Philipp da Cunha wondered if nuclear energy would curtail renewable power in Poland. Prof Gudowski noted that renewable energy was prioritised in Poland as well, but he saw the future as hydrogen storing excess energy, despite the current over-enthusiasm among politicians. Mr Grzegorz Kupczak , Slovinski National Park (Słowiński Park Narodowy), explained that the park had the status of a biosphere reserve. One of the oldest reserves in Poland since 1997, the park had to fulfil three basic tasks: protection, development, and logistical support. As only the protective function had been fully met, the park had had to reinforce the other two in order to maintain its status as a biosphere reserve. Essentially building up a reserve from the ground up in-between 2015 and 2017, they had called on the help from stakeholders and set up a steering committee to pool resources and efforts. Located in the middle of Pomerania, the reserve had originally covered only the area of the national park itself and its buffer zone. As part of the agreement with stakeholders, that area had been considerably enlarged. Currently, they were still seeking to establish a buffer zone in the Baltic Sea. He underlined that the biosphere did not represent a nature protection zone – that was restricted to the national park itself. Instead, the biosphere reserve coordinated all kinds of land use, allowing both settlement and development to varying degrees. He next spoke about the name which originated in the ethnic group of Slovinski, i.e., the Slovenian people in the area who spoke their own dialect of the North-Polish Kashub language. Still, they had been treated as Germans after World War II, many of them forced to emigrate to Germany. Now Poland recognised their heritage and culture. Cultural heritage, Mr Kupczak underlined, was an important part of biosphere reserves and was reflected in an open-air museum in Kluki. Slovinski was part of the cooperation Biosphere for Baltic which had been launched in 2017 and included, among others, reserves in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Estonia. The network was raising awareness of sustainability challenges in the Baltic Sea, highlighting the interconnectedness of land and sea as well as serving as pilot implementations of the sustainable development goals. The focus was on two broad themes: Source to Sea concerned the effects of human activities across rivers and deltas into the Baltic Sea, while Ocean Literacy promoted a better understanding of the ocean and its interaction with people. Biosphere for Baltic had set itself the goals of increasing the reserves’ dialogue, raising awareness among the stakeholders as well as exchanging experiences, best practices and ideas. The cooperation was implemented through exchange events, workshops, a joint Interreg project about learning sites to combat eutrophication in the planning stage and celebrating the Day of the Baltic Sea. Together, they had published booklets about projects and sustainable products, in support of the local markets. This was a strong network, Mr Kupczak underlined, benefitting each other. BSPC Secretary General Bodo Bahr referred to recent international agreements on maritime protection; he wondered if Poland was planning to expand its biosphere reserves. Mr Kupczak conceded that he did not know the answer. Almost all of the eleven reserves in Poland were connected to the national park. Expansion was planned for then national park, but these efforts were difficult because local communities were wary of the perceived limitations within reserves, although he was still hopeful. Since the biosphere reserves were not enshrined in Polish law, they were voluntary in nature. Ms Beate Schlupp asked how many private owners had joined this cooperation, noting that biosphere reserves did mean limitations in Germany. Mr Kupczak praised the German reserves before noting the differences between countries. His organisation did not have a private partner, but they were cooperating with their stakeholders and providing benefits, such as e.g., promoting their products. Mr Alexander Mohrenberg was curious about how to protect wandering sand dunes. Mr Kupczak explained that the 300 hectares of moving dunes in Slovinski national park were strictly protected, adding that they were shifting by ten to twelve metres per year. Tourist trails led through the dunes, along with education infrastructure. Chairman da Cunha noted that this day’s presentations would be featured in the final report, as were all the expert presentations from the working group’s three years. Working Group Calls for Action Chaired by Philipp da Cunha and Jarosław Wałęsa , the Working Group discussed the calls for action in the 32 nd Resolution of the BSPC at the Berlin Conference. The draft was based on the expert presentations, discussions, and input during the three years of the working group’s existence. Mr Kacper Płażyński , Ms Claudia Müller , Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle , Chairman Philipp da Cunha , Prof Jānis Vucāns , Mr Jarosław Wałęsa, Secretary General Bodo Bahr , Ms Emma Nohrén , Mr Simon Påvals and Mr Alexander Mohrenberg contributed to the discussion about the wording of the various calls. In particular, Mr Płażyński favoured a diversification of supplies in technology and resources, not to rely on challenging countries. Regarding the proposed inclusion of nuclear power in the calls, there were differing opinions from the various BSPC delegations, respective to their countries’ political approaches. Mr Bahr suggested a phrasing in line with e.g., the notes of the EU Commission during the CBSS offshore wind conference the week before in Berlin and the result of the working groups discussion one year before in Mariehamn to reflect the nations’ diverging energy strategies. This found the working group’s unanimous approval. Another point of discussion was how to involve the local level as a crucial aspect of climate change and biodiversity efforts. The call concerning carbon sequestration concerning forests also drew some discussion and the desire to mention various other areas, such as peatlands or mangroves. The issue of land degradation and forest management was also discussed to sharpen the call and create consensus. Finally, the working group considered the lack of transparency about actions and behaviour of the Russian Federation in the Baltic Sea which might hinder the goal of a clean and sustainable ocean to be taken into account by the BSPC Standing Committee for the 32 nd resolution. After further discussion, the Working Group unanimously agreed on 25 calls for action to the governments for inclusion in the 32 nd BSPC resolution and adoption by the Annual Conference. These recommendations also considered the proposals of the previous Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum, in line with the results of the earlier consultations ( recommendations here ). Other Matters Chairman Philipp da Cunha noted that the governments’ answers to the working group’s survey had been detailed and informative, including the subsequent question regarding the policy changes due to the war in Ukraine. These statements were published on the BSPC website. The same applied to the working group’s previous calls for action to the governments incorporated in the 31 st BSPC Resolution. Prof Jānis Vucāns explained that Estonia, after its recent elections, was still forming its BSPC delegation so that there was a small delay with that government’s reaction. The working group agreed to include all the governmental statements received in the final report. In addition, the report would follow the format of previous versions and would also include the results of the present meeting. The working group agreed on the procedure to complete the final report for its presentation to the BSPC Annual Conference in Berlin. Furthermore, the working group agreed to attach an executive summary of the final report. The chairman further informed the group that the fourth session of the Berlin Conference would be devoted to the working group’s topic of climate change and biodiversity. This was when the final report would be presented.

The BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity assembled in Tromsø, Norway, dealing with expert presentations and the newest research results from the Norwegian Polar Institute, the Institute of Marine Research and the Arctic Council. The working group dealt with the dramatic effects of climate change in the Arctic and its impact on biodiversity, with consequences for the entire planet. About 20 participants from the Baltic Assembly, the German Bundestag, Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland and Sweden attended the deliberations. Introduction Working group chair Mr Philipp da Cunha opened the session in Tromsø, Norway. He highlighted the importance of seeing the rapid changes wrought by climate change in person in the Arctic where the effects were progressing at three to four times the speed of the rest of the world. The expert presentations were introduced by Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle who underlined that the Norwegian Polar Institute was the premier institution on environmental monitoring, mapping of both Polar regions. Presentations Ms Nalan Koc , Research Director, Norwegian Polar Institute , explained that Norway believed research provided the basis for excellent management of the High North. Twenty institutions, like the Polar Institute, were united under the research umbrella. Her own institution, launched originally in 1906, was a directorate immediately associated with the Norwegian ministry of the environment, providing scientific research and management advice to the government regarding the polar regions. They handled topological and geographic mapping of Svalbard, Jan Mayen and Norwegian claims and territories in Antarctica. In the Arctic, they focused on Svalbard, Jan Mayen, the Arctic Ocean, and the Barents Sea, while in Antarctica, Dronning Maud Land, Peter I Øy, Bouvetøya and adjacent seas were their centres of attention. Their understanding of these regions fed directly into their management. Headquartered at the Fram Centre, Tromsø, it had research facilities in Sverdrup and Ny Ålesund as well as its own research vessel, the icebreaker Kronprins Haakon , and a zeppelin observatory. Thus, they were covering both land- and sea-based research in the Arctic and Antarctica. A wide array of research infrastructure had been established at both the North and South Pole which they were sharing, e.g., through an EU-monitored project called ARICE (Arctic Research ICEbreaker Council). Thus, the Kronprins Haakon was made available for international researchers without such marine resources available to them. A class 3 icebreaker, the ship could operate throughout the entire year, providing berths for 35 scientists on expeditions of up to 65 days. Moreover, the Svalbard Integrated Arctic Earth Observing System was a cooperating research infrastructure for improved knowledge of environmental and climatic change in the Arctic. The local instrumentation was open to other academics. Furthermore, there was a database providing all the research data gathered so far. The Polar Institute coordinated the research to make it as effective as possible. Since 1968, the Ny-Ålesund Research Station had served as an observatory, laboratory and field base for arctic research and environmental monitoring. It was also open to any researchers interested in the work. First set up in 2005, the station Troll in Antarctica was operating year-round with a minimum crew of 6 persons. Ms Koc described the wide and interdisciplinary range of natural science studies implemented in the Polar Institute’s work, considering among others climate change and monitoring, biodiversity, glaciers, and oceanography. She underlined that these efforts were indispensable but also very expensive. At the same time, to cover these huge areas, international cooperation was crucial. During the field work, ice cores had been harvested that documented the last 800,000 years of the climate. These showed that the current, human-caused levels of carbon dioxide were unprecedented, exceeding the maximums of ca. 300 ppm during the interglacial periods and reaching peaks of 420 ppm today. As for temperatures, a global rise of about 1 °C could be documented since the first records in 1880. The land areas were warming faster than the oceans. Furthermore, the Arctic was warming three to four times quicker than the rest of the globe. This “Arctic Amplification” also meant that containing global warming to 1.5 °C by the end of the century, as per the Paris Agreement, would still correspond to a rise of 3 – 5 °C in the Arctic. Already, the summer ice was thinning rapidly, reaching extreme lows in ice coverage in 2007 and 2012. Overall, some 40 % of ice coverage had been lost since 1980. With less solar energy reflected back by ice, the oceans were warming even faster, creating and reinforcing the amplification effect. At the same time, the winter storm cycle had accelerated, contributing to breaking up sea ice. Ms Koc quoted the IPCC predictions, indicating very little sea ice in the Arctic summer by mid-century. She added that the models for Arctic climate modelling were too conservative, though, and had to be updated to reflect current data, in particular the thinner ice layers, and new research. On the Polar Institute’s 2022 Arctic Cruise, two new moorings were installed to monitor data in addition to the 30-year-old moorings in the Fram Strait. This was to investigate what was happening in the central Arctic Ocean, specifically changes to the hydrography or chemistry and their effects on the ecosystem. In addition, they were pursuing the project SUDARCO with partner organisations in order to research risks to value chains and ecosystem services. Focusing on Svalbard, Ms Koc explained that local temperatures had risen by 6 °C in the past 100 years, leading to shrinking glaciers and now the occurrence of rain rather than snow, generating ice on the ground. Previously, fauna could dig through snow to get to the vegetation below, but ice proved an impenetrable barrier. Ms Koc concluded that there is hardly any region on earth warming as fast as the Arctic Ocean, opening up previously inaccessible areas and already affecting the ecosystem. Thus, new data was needed to enable effective management. Furthermore, Arctic changes were affecting the weather patterns in the whole northern hemisphere: What had been a relatively stable polar jet stream had become wavy, sending cold air as far south as Florida in the US and drawing warm air as far as Svalbard. At the same time, pollution was also pulled northwards into the pristine Arctic region. BSPC Secretary General Bodo Bahr raised the question about the intensity of political and public awareness and reactions, citing United Nations Secretary General António Guterres who pointed out a few days before at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that “our world is at a crossroads and our planet is at the crosshairs”, that “we are nearing the point of no return” and that “we are at the tip of the tipping point”. Ms Nalan Koc noted that the Polar Institute was advising and informing the Norwegian government. Ms Westgaard-Halle added that politics was aware of the severity of the problem, but there was a gap to the understanding of the public. BSPC President Johannes Schraps underlined that politicians had to make decisions rather than scientists informing them. Prof Jānis Vucāns asked for clarification if sea ice was now melting from both above and below which Ms Koc confirmed. Mr Andrius Mazuronis pointed to the global nature of carbon dioxide emissions, in particular huge countries such as China, India or Russia, inquiring about interest from these countries. Mr Jarosław Wałęsa wondered about the natural share of the otherwise human-caused increase in CO 2 . Ms Westgaard-Halle asked if there was ocean acidification. Ms Nalan Koc confirmed that the Polar Institute was working on acidification and chemical composition of the Arctic Ocean and would publish a respective paper soon. She further explained that they could derive trends from their data, showing that warming effects would happen faster than predicted in the IPCC report. As for international interest and participation, she pointed to a wide range of nations, including scientists from China, South Korea, Japan, India – going well beyond the Arctic countries. Dr Lis Lindal Jørgensen , Institute of Marine Research , explained that the environment was shifting very fast. Thus, adaptation to these changes was necessary. The title of her speech posited whether a 100 % sustainable management was possible. One of the largest such institutions in Europe, the Institute of Marine Research was concerned with monitoring, research, and advisory work. It was associated with the ministry of fishery. They provided the catch advice on 80 fish stocks as well as advising all aquaculture in Norway. At the same time, they researched the entire ecosystem towards the goal of an ecosystem-based management. The Institute had set itself the vision of clean and rich oceans and coastal areas. Part of that was sustaining biodiversity and halting the loss of species. A biodiverse ecosystem might suffer many pressures but had the potential to evade them, while a monoculture with one or two species could be wiped out with relatively little pressure. She explained that the former described the resilience of the ecosystem. Moreover, a preservation of biodiversity was called for by the UN’s new International Biodiversity Agreement, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and international agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. Dr Jørgensen noted that Norway was an ocean country – its sea area was six times larger than the landmass. Including all the fjords and bays, its coastline stretched for 25,000 kilometres. Moreover, the Norwegian sea had a mean depth of 2,000 metres. That meant a huge challenge for management. To that end, the Institute deployed a minimum of two ships at any time on the oceans, increasing to a whole fleet in the summer. Concerning the Arctic, she offered more details on the Barents Sea. The survey cooperation there had been going for a century by now, with more than 400 stations monitoring biodiversity, the entire water column, the climate – temperature, salinity etc. –, zooplankton, fish, pelagic and benthic species, marine mammals as well as sea birds. Their ships were packed with scientists of all disciplines. In the Barents Sea, the volume of Arctic water had been shrinking since the 1960s while the share of Atlantic water had been rising. Likewise, the Atlantic biodiversity of fish was expanding northward whereas the Arctic species were decreasing. Arctic fish were small and lived on the seabed, some 230 metres below the surface in the Barents Sea. As the sea floor further north dropped to 4,000 metres, they had to migrate eastwards. However, some fish species’ stocks were currently improving, although the warming of the water limited that expansion. All of these processes had to be understood, she insisted. Looking at the thousands of species on the sea bed, Dr Jørgensen noted that the Institute had found that fish trawls contained up to 100 species of benthos, allowing cost-effective surveillance with onboard capacities. This showed that since 2005, there had been a general change of dominance from Arctic to boreal species. Based on the findings of where vulnerable species were found, corridors had been locked off from trawling. Since 2019, those areas freshly freed from ice were being researched and temporarily banned before corridors could be established. Conversely, the fishermen’s work in the acceptable areas was rated as sustainable. Putting together the data on fish and benthic species with those on marine mammals, birds and zooplankton, the Institute was seeking to build a holistic understanding of how the ecosystem was functioning. Cross- and trans-disciplinary approaches were necessary for that; at the same time, this was the way forward. Moreover, more cost- and time-efficient monitoring had to be implemented. To establish 100 % sustainable ocean management, she called for an integrated management approach combining all the measures, from completely restricted to entirely free-use areas. A whole web of measures had to be put in place, based on the whole of understanding of the ecosystem. Yet, this also had to take into account the entirety of human activities affecting the ecosystem. As an example, she noted the noise coming from trawling or tourism. That would lead to a holistic risk assessment of the area for the respective species. In the view of Dr Jørgensen, this should be distilled into a simplified risk map, much like the weather forecast, so that it would be easy to see what actions were to be taken. An example would be that beluga whales were travelling through one area from June to August, so that should be avoided. All of this meant an ecosystem-based approach – a comprehensive system of management based on the best available scientific data. Dr Jørgensen underlined that very few of these areas and measures were constrained to one nation, making peaceful international cooperation indispensable. At the same time, it was also necessary to unite divergent views of sustainability; here, she mentioned Arctic indigenous peoples compared to multinational companies. She concluded by posing a number of questions to the politicians that were needed to direct the ecosystem-based approach, such as the objectives or the international interaction. Ms Anna Kassautzki mentioned that Germany was seeking a way to make fishery ecologically and economically sustainable, in the face of a huge crisis in the Baltic Sea. This was done in conjunction with the industry and with science. Currently, they were developing a database with all the information. Ms Emma Nohrén saw a deficiency in the data reflecting caught fish in tonnes but not the age or health composition. Mr Johannes Schraps inquired how the Russian aggression against Ukraine was impacting the Institute’s work, as the Arctic waters were shared. Prof Jānis Vucāns considered only the holistic perception of the Baltic Sea viable, raising the issue of invasive species that had to be resolved internationally. Mr Philipp da Cunha wondered if there was a best practice example for the integrated management approach. Mr Bodo Bahr wondered if the Norwegian Institute was also cooperating with researchers from the Baltic Sea or other oceans. In that respect, he mentioned HELCOM and their decades-long work. Dr Lis Lindal Jørgensen said she read a lot about HELCOM’s work, and some of her colleagues were cooperating. International programmes were highly important in her view. Moving on, she explained there would be an international conference in the next year elaborating the integrated management approach. She noted that the data need was immense. Regarding the Ukraine war, she conceded that there were considerable challenges, but on the fisheries’ work, Norway had decided to continue the scientific collaboration. Ms Kristina Bär , Head of Communications, Arctic Council Secretariat, gave an overview of the Arctic Council . The secretariat was the administrative body, she explained. The Arctic Council was the leading intergovernmental forum promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among Arctic states and Arctic indigenous peoples. As such, it was a soft law organisation, established in 1996 to focus on environmental issues and sustainable development. Among their fields of interest were Arctic peoples, biodiversity, climate, the ocean, pollutants, and emergencies. The eight Arctic states were those that had territories above the Arctic circle. Furthermore, the six permanent participants were organisations representing either one or several indigenous peoples – covering 40 peoples of 650,000 individuals in total – living in the Arctic. Ms Bär highlighted the unique feature that these had full consultation rights with any decisions. Moving on, there were six working groups and one expert group dealing with different issues, such as contaminants, monitoring and assessment, or sustainable development. In addition, there were 38 observers: 13 non-Arctic states, 13 intergovernmental and interparliamentary organisations, and 12 non-governmental organisations. She underlined that these contributed expertise in working groups rather than being passive. Looking at the working group concerned with biodiversity, namely, Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), she said that the findings were taken to the government and the residents. Monitoring, assessment, and expert research provided a good overview of the Arctic’s biodiversity thanks to their Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme (CBMP). This brought together national experts, governments, indigenous people to look at the core ecosystems in the Arctic: freshwater, marine, terrestrial, and coastal. They also investigated Arctic migratory birds as well as wildfires and mainstreaming biodiversity in mining operations. Every two years, there was a ministerial meeting setting the overall course. The chairmanship was rotated at this meeting, so that the current Russian chairmanship would be transferred to Norway in May 2023. The Senior Arctic Officials – usually government representatives – were overseeing the regular work which happened in the subsidiaries, the working and expert groups. The secretariat, funded by the 8 Arctic states, supported the work of the council’s chair. One of the major achievements of the Arctic Council were three legally binding agreements negotiated under their auspices, concerning enhanced international scientific cooperation, cooperation on marine oil pollution, and search and rescue. Mr Rolf Rødven , Arctic Council, Executive Secretary for the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, explained that they were monitoring and assessing the levels of pollutants, the impact of climate change, and the effects on the ecosystem. With their scientific assessments, this programme advised both the Arctic Council as well as organisations like the IPCC or the WHO as well as HELCOM. Their work included harmonising data to ensure that measurement errors were eliminated. As for climate change, the Arctic was getting much warmer, three times faster than the rest of the world – 3 degrees since 1971. Precipitation had increased by 10 %, with a lot more rain than snow. The permafrost was thawing while the sea ice had shrunk by half and land ice had also decreased. The layers in the sea were mixing more strongly. That, he pointed out, was affecting the societies living in the Arctic. The 4 million people mostly lived in small settlements, with some 64 % located on permafrost. The hunting season had shortened due to sludge. Transport generally was limited as driving on permafrost was no longer possible in many areas. Just in Alaska, permafrost thaw was expected to increase the infrastructure maintenance cost by 5.5 billion US dollars by 2100. Another effect was ocean acidification, showing some of the fastest rates in the Arctic. This worked to dissolve snail shells, endangering the animals. The combined warming and growing acidification greatly increased the mortality of juvenile cod in the Barents Sea. Thus, the permitted catch quota had to be lowered to one sixth, reducing the revenue from 285 million US dollars to just 37. To counter this gloomy scenario, Mr Rødven mentioned the various pledges at recent COPs to reduce carbon dioxide as well as methane in order to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. Mr Jens Toft , Arctic Council Secretariat, Project Coordinator on Youth Engagement, talked about the manifold interaction of CAFF with youth engagement. One of them was the Arctic Youth Summit, held in 2018 in Finland, which had dealt with biodiversity. The resulting Arctic Youth declaration had called for empowering Arctic youth voices, increased opportunities, and raising awareness of Arctic issues. Another organisation was the Arctic Youth Network, connecting more than 800 Arctic young people, aiming to give young people a greater voice in Arctic affairs. CAFF had facilitated youth exchanges between their member states, permanent participants, and observers. Moreover, they had arranged fellowships with the International Arctic Science Committee and the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists as well as internships. Online tool kits had been provided for teachers and young students, translated into various languages, such as Sami or Russian. Finally, a Youth Advisory Team had helped CAFF guide their Arctic youth engagement strategy. This was a six-year project outlining the need and value of youth engagement to develop creative solutions, supporting diversity, lowering of barriers and professional growth. One of the goals was to have the youths develop skills in biodiversity and related fields to take home and apply there. BSPC President Johannes Schraps pointed out the BSPC’s youth engagement through the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum. He suggested an invitation of Arctic Youths to the forum in August. He asked about Russia’s involvement in the Arctic Council. Ms Nohrén wondered what topics were of interest to youths. Mr da Cunha inquired whether young people were leaving the environmentally challenged areas. Given shared interests (and a number of member states), he proposed a collaboration for the future. Prof Vucāns was interested in the Arctic view of the planned project of a Nordic Silk Road. Mr Bahr wondered if there was work on legally binding agreements in combating climate change. Mr Jens Toft explained that he was working on recommendations how to increase the outreach material to youths and increase their involvement. In general, youths had to be included in matters affecting them, in a meaningful way. He confirmed that young people in the Arctic regions were moving south to more resilient areas. At the same time, national initiatives sought to increase the attractiveness of northern regions. Ms Kristina Bär added that a project – currently on hold – dealt with Arctic demography displaying gender balance, age distribution and the like in each region. That showed quite a variety of these factors. Regarding the ministerial meeting, she explained that the Russian chairmanship was planning on hosting it in Siberia. It would be in hybrid form. On the idea of a Nordic Silk Road, she explained that this project was more on the national level and therefore not a topic of the Arctic Council. Mr Rolf Rødven explained that climate agreements were usually negotiated based on national conventions and were not as binding as other international agreements. Rather than that, the Arctic Council’s recommendations were taken into account by the national governments. He doubted that in the current conditions, a joint legal agreement of the eight Arctic states was likely. Otherwise, despite the challenges in the past year, their work was ongoing, targeting a new report for 2024. Survey among the Governments Working Group Chairman Philipp da Cunha explained that the working group had directed a survey at the BSPC governments concerning climate change and biodiversity. The detailed replies had been published in a compilation on the BSPC website. An additional question on the effects of the war in Ukraine on climate policy goals and their implementation had been submitted with the last resolution. Should the answers affect the recommendations by the working group, the chairman invited the members to submit such considerations by 17 April 2023. The 32 nd BSPC Annual Conference in Berlin Regarding the conference, BSPC President Johannes Schraps remarked that a session was dedicated to the topic of the working group. That was still in the planning stage, with several speakers confirmed, although he considered inviting Dr Lis Lindal Jørgensen from the earlier presentations since her considerations might prove enlightening. He underlined that this was a vital session since the Final Report of the working group would be presented there. The report would become an integral part of this year’s resolution. Prof Jānis Vucāns asked about chairpersons for the sessions, volunteering the Baltic States for the session on peaceful neighbourliness. Mr Schraps and Mr Bahr explained that proposals from the delegations would be asked for, and the matter would be approached before the next Standing Committee meeting. The Final Report of the Working Group WG Chairman Philipp da Cunha remarked that the Final Report could be structured like the Interim Reports, with the detailed contents available on the website. BSPC President Johannes Schraps suggested to take into account to involve previous members of the Working Group, among them the former chairwoman, Ms Cecilie Tenfjord-Toftby, in the preparation of the report. Secretary General Bodo Bahr considered that a chapter on best practice examples from the individual countries could be added, as per the suggestions of the delegations. Prof Jānis Vucāns and Ms Lene Westgaard-Halle discussed the report. Further Matters BSPC WG CCB Chairman Philipp da Cunha noted that the governments had been asked to comment on the BSPC’s resolution from Stockholm. The regional parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern had accepted the resolution as a whole, he noted. Secretary General Bodo Bahr added that a reply from the German federal government had already been received. A compilation would be put together and distributed. Mr Jesper Josefsson of the Åland delegation and Mr Jarosław Wałęsa, Head of the Polish delegation to the BSPC were appointed Vice-Chairmen of the BSPC Working Group on Climate Change and Biodiversity. Regarding the upcoming final meeting of the working group in May in Gdansk, WG Vice-Chair Jarosław Wałęsa , BSPC President Johannes Schraps and Ms Anna Kassautzki discussed the programme and suggested speakers or invitees. Polaria Tour After the negotiations, a guided Polaria tour through the world’s most northerly aquarium opened a deep insight into the Arctic environment. One of the highlights was a panoramic film showcasing the singularity of the Arctic. It was a mesmerising experience that gave the WG a glimpse into the unique natural phenomena in the Arctic. The tour also included a presentation about the impact of climate change on the Arctic ecosystem and its effects on the polar bear population. The presentation highlighted the importance of conservation efforts and individuals’ role in protecting the Arctic environment. It was an eye-opening experience that underlined the urgency of taking action to protect our planet. Another exciting part of the tour was a training session for the seals. The WG witnessed the trainers working with the seals and teaching them various skills. It was fascinating to see the intelligence and agility of these animals up close. Ms Anne Grete Johansen , the director of Polaria, provided a presentation about the Polaria future plans . The WG also discussed international cooperation with similar institutions in this field. The guided Polaria Tour was ideal for learning about the Arctic environment and its challenges. It was an excellent opportunity to witness the beauty and uniqueness of the Arctic and learn more about the efforts being made to protect it. Polar Museum Furthermore, the BSPC WG CCB Took a guided tour of the Polar Museum Tromsø. The participants valued that an impressive experience. The museum is dedicated to showcasing the cultural history of the Arctic and the polar expeditions that have taken place throughout history. During the tour, the WG learned about the many explorers who have ventured into the Arctic, including Roald Amundsen, Fridtjof Nansen, and Umberto Nobile, and saw the artefacts and equipment used on the expeditions. The participants also learned about the history of whaling in the Arctic and its impact on the region’s environment. Additionally, the museum features exhibits on the indigenous people of the Arctic, including the Sami people and their traditional way of life. The participants had the opportunity to see traditional clothing, tools, and other artefacts that showcase the rich cultural heritage of the Arctic. The presentation in the Polar Museum was a fascinating and informative experience on the history of Arctic exploration and the region’s cultural heritage. The participants of the WG meeting deepened the discussed issues and the day’s experiences in further conversations.